Can a poor quality photograph reduce the value of a coin?
RYK
Posts: 35,800 ✭✭✭✭✭
In this thread, we learned that a good photograph can enhance the value of a coin (maybe). Is the opposite also true? Can a poor photograph of a coin reduce the value of a coin?
I say, "Yes." I know of many cases in which I first saw a poor quality internet image of a coin or one that represented the coin in an unflattering light or exposure. Most of the time, I do not get to see the coin in person, but will pass on the basis of the image. On the occasions that I do get to see the coin in person, my first impression still lingers and influences my opinion of the coin. I think that it is human nature.
Sellers, I think it is in many ways better to have no coin image available rather than one in which the coin in hand is far more pleasing than its image.
I say, "Yes." I know of many cases in which I first saw a poor quality internet image of a coin or one that represented the coin in an unflattering light or exposure. Most of the time, I do not get to see the coin in person, but will pass on the basis of the image. On the occasions that I do get to see the coin in person, my first impression still lingers and influences my opinion of the coin. I think that it is human nature.
Sellers, I think it is in many ways better to have no coin image available rather than one in which the coin in hand is far more pleasing than its image.
0
Comments
"I think it is in many ways better to have no coin image available rather than one in which the coin in hand is far more pleasing than its image."
The best scenario is for a buyer to get the coin and state that the coin is better in hand than the images portrayed, assuming that the images were reasonably accurate.
"Underpromise and overdeliver."
I agree that it is always optimal to get a coin that is nicer than the image. The image, however, must be nice and accurate enough to encourage interest in the coin.
are profit margins affected by lack of a good presentation ?
YES
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
There was an "unnamed" coin for sale at ANA in an auction. It was worth 100K. The coin was spectacular...color, lustre, everything you would want ioin a gold coin, and it was a VERY strong MS66. The picture showed a pale coin with copper spots. Nothing like the coin appeared like. The copper was there, but the intensity of the surfaces tempered them to the point where I didn't even remember the spots.
the pic made it look like a leopard. What a shame for the seller and any potential buyer who buys from a catalogue.
<< <i>A popular game on Ebay is "fuzzy picture roulette." >>
That's similar to the game of hide the salami, since somebody is probably going to get screwed.
Russ, NCNE
On the other hand, a nice large and clear photo can be bad, too. If you blow up a nickel to the size of a 19" monitor, a small contact mark can look like a huge gash. In-hand, the coin looks nice. But at 15 inches across, it looks like a beat up piece of junk. So - from what I've seen, if selling a coin - you want the photo to be just big enough to prove you are not trying to hide anything, but not so big as to make minor flaws look like major defects. And if buying a coin with a large photo, reducing the size can give you a more realistic look at what the coin will look like in-hand.
KR
The first two photos are from past auctions. The first might not even create enough interest to pull the coin for lot viewing.
<< <i>-- "I'd have to use the first and third image above to sell that coin. One image doesn't tell the whoe story." --
The first two photos are from past auctions. The first might not even create enough interest to pull the coin for lot viewing. >>
The first is the most important for me. It shows the surfaces best. You can see the cameo and the state of the mirrors.
I'm glad you said cameo; I see it, too, but the graders did not.