Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
@VicPortland said:
Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
Or you can use one of the excellent through the slab photographers who post on the forum.
True. I had Bluevette image some of my coins a long time ago (he does a great job) but I also think some of my coins might upgrade so I was hoping to kill two birds with one stone. There is no rush - I have owned most of the upgrade candidate coins for decades so what is another 6 - 12 months waiting for PCGS to (hopefully) re-invent the coin imaging wheel...
@VicPortland said:
Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
Or you can use one of the excellent through the slab photographers who post on the forum.
Except only trueviews can become part of the cert record.
@VicPortland said:
Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
Or you can use one of the excellent through the slab photographers who post on the forum.
Except only trueviews can become part of the cert record.
I don't understand the value placed on that aspect when one has an excellent picture that one can use that is often more accurate than a TV.
Hmm. I can understand both viewpoints. Here is a Trueview of one of my favorite coins. I think it is a great image AND it shows up in Coinfacts as the only currently graded (and imaged) PL for the year so there is some value in having it linked to the cert.
@VicPortland said:
Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
Or you can use one of the excellent through the slab photographers who post on the forum.
Except only trueviews can become part of the cert record.
I don't understand the value placed on that aspect when one has an excellent picture that one can use that is often more accurate than a TV.
Stacks Bowers for example links to the cert page of a PCGS coin. It is extremely helpful to see Stack's through slab image along with the trueview. When I pull up the trueview, if it doesn't represent the coin or makes it look bad, it's influencing my decision to buy the coin. With such poor looking true views, I might miss out on an otherwise good coin, or as a consigner, I might get less money for a really nice coin with a bad photo.
In these cases, NO trueview would be better than a bad trueview.
Everyone used to complain about the so-called "glamour shots" which made coins look unnaturally attractive. Well, they fixed that didn't they? See, they do listen.
Perhaps this is a case of lowered expectations but a recent order had mostly ok TVs. 6 of 7 silver coins and all 3 gold coins were a tough yellow/light but at least representative of the actual coins. Should I be happy I got the below result on only 1 of 11 coins?
@conrad99 said:
Everyone used to complain about the so-called "glamour shots" which made coins look unnaturally attractive. Well, they fixed that didn't they? See, they do listen.
No, they didn't. The moniker "true view" implies that they look close to reality, and the recent examples and complaints here aren't that the coins don't look good but that they don't match reality. They are not a true representation of the coin. I'll post another example from my recent submission.
My awful trueview:
An old TV from coinfacts where it is properly lit and you can see everything:
So as an update, in response to my complaint the photo dept replaced this photo (and the others) with an alternative photo. I can see why they selected the one they did, it make the coin look better. The new replacement though looks more "true" and allows you to see the complete surface condition, which I prefer. It still doesn't seem to be as good as it can be. I'm curious what you guys think. There's still too much glare, especially compared to the Coinfacts version.
@ProofCollection said:
So as an update, in response to my complaint the photo dept replaced this photo (and the others) with an alternative photo. I can see why they selected the one they did, it make the coin look better. The new replacement though looks more "true" and allows you to see the complete surface condition, which I prefer. It still doesn't seem to be as good as it can be. I'm curious what you guys think. There's still too much glare, especially compared to the Coinfacts version.
You know what the coin looks like in hand, while I don’t. But if I had to guess, the CoinFacts images are the most accurate ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
PCGS forgot to image the coin below in my last submission. They kindly provided a postage paid return (both ways) and quickly imaged the coin. This one is far improved compared to the other three in the submission.
Just wanted to say thanks PCGS!!!
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
Comments
I think people on this forum greatly underestimate how hard it is to replace numismatic photographers, and even more so for photographers like Phil.
It's a niche skill, and has a steep learning curve.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Well crap. I was thinking about joining this year so I could send some of my coins for Trueview/Regrade but it looks like I will need to wait until somebody over there figures out how to take coin photos first...
Or you can use one of the excellent through the slab photographers who post on the forum.
True. I had Bluevette image some of my coins a long time ago (he does a great job) but I also think some of my coins might upgrade so I was hoping to kill two birds with one stone. There is no rush - I have owned most of the upgrade candidate coins for decades so what is another 6 - 12 months waiting for PCGS to (hopefully) re-invent the coin imaging wheel...
Except only trueviews can become part of the cert record.
I don't understand the value placed on that aspect when one has an excellent picture that one can use that is often more accurate than a TV.
Hmm. I can understand both viewpoints. Here is a Trueview of one of my favorite coins. I think it is a great image AND it shows up in Coinfacts as the only currently graded (and imaged) PL for the year so there is some value in having it linked to the cert.
Stacks Bowers for example links to the cert page of a PCGS coin. It is extremely helpful to see Stack's through slab image along with the trueview. When I pull up the trueview, if it doesn't represent the coin or makes it look bad, it's influencing my decision to buy the coin. With such poor looking true views, I might miss out on an otherwise good coin, or as a consigner, I might get less money for a really nice coin with a bad photo.
In these cases, NO trueview would be better than a bad trueview.
https://pcgs.com/cert/38606681
Must be one of those error coins...
Everyone used to complain about the so-called "glamour shots" which made coins look unnaturally attractive. Well, they fixed that didn't they? See, they do listen.
Perhaps this is a case of lowered expectations but a recent order had mostly ok TVs. 6 of 7 silver coins and all 3 gold coins were a tough yellow/light but at least representative of the actual coins. Should I be happy I got the below result on only 1 of 11 coins?
No, they didn't. The moniker "true view" implies that they look close to reality, and the recent examples and complaints here aren't that the coins don't look good but that they don't match reality. They are not a true representation of the coin. I'll post another example from my recent submission.
My awful trueview:
An old TV from coinfacts where it is properly lit and you can see everything:
So as an update, in response to my complaint the photo dept replaced this photo (and the others) with an alternative photo. I can see why they selected the one they did, it make the coin look better. The new replacement though looks more "true" and allows you to see the complete surface condition, which I prefer. It still doesn't seem to be as good as it can be. I'm curious what you guys think. There's still too much glare, especially compared to the Coinfacts version.
Looks like we lost @ctf_error_coins to the ban hammer.
Kind of sad...but "live by the sword, die by the sword."
We'll miss you, Chris
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
This one is dead on vs the coin in hand.
https://smallcopperguy.com
You know what the coin looks like in hand, while I don’t. But if I had to guess, the CoinFacts images are the most accurate ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks, PCGS the TrueViews are improving.
PCGS forgot to image the coin below in my last submission. They kindly provided a postage paid return (both ways) and quickly imaged the coin. This one is far improved compared to the other three in the submission.
Just wanted to say thanks PCGS!!!