it seems to be an unpopular stance but i'm with stinkinlincoln on this.........not to the point of outrage, just think its an odd practice on the part of PCGS.......also odd that they havent come to defend themself (PCGS) in this thread or help explain why they do this.........as was pointed out earlier, they should have a vast stock of coin photos across all grades so as not to have to resort to image manipulation
OK...I tried skimming through the thread to see if anyone thought of this already but I didn't see it anywhere. Did anyone think that MAYBE it was a typing mistake? For all we know the poor soul who has to update on this stuff simply put a 6 instead of a 8. BTW, just checked CoinFacts and it is listed as a VG8...
I see the issue as a way to teach people the intricate points of grading, via photo. While I appreciate the finer points Stinky, my friend, makes.... We'll just agree to disagree on different sides here, I guess.
Illustrations accompanying a grading guide or list of coins are commonly stock or generic images. They are intended to show the design or the amount of wear, and not to represent a specific coin or to sell a certain coin. I completely agree with TDN and others.
It’s neat to find that a coin you own is being used as one of the illustrations, but it seems strange that the grade on the slab does not match that in the grading guide. It might be an error that PCGS will correct. Taking it beyond a mistake seems a "stretch."
<< <i>How can a digitally manipulated image of a graded coin, downgraded to fit a more accurate 'look' for a grade, be better for educational purposes than the coin graded and presented for the grade PCGS saw fit to give it?
And, if the grade doesnt match what they are looking for, why not find a coin that did match their needs without altering a coins imaged history?
Pedigrees matter to coins, and to say otherwise is a lie. Plate coins are noted for a reason, regardless if this service is for educational purposes...
If the arguement is that its for educational purposes, so is every other book written on this hobby, do they alter a coins image to the point of a new grade and look to fit their needs?
They are PCGS... TruView.... Here... Auction sites... They have to alter images and downgrade coins that collectors presently own and may be using in registries?
Am I missing something here? >>
I think some of the consternation a few folks are feeling is likely due to a mixing of the idea of a representative coin for grading purposes vs a specific coin for possible sale. In the former there is no harm in using a virtual coin while in the latter extreme accuracy is always the best policy and is truly needed for efficiency in the market.
The portion of the text I placed in bold has some significance in that it is not unheard of to use partially manipulated images or to use a single image multiple times to show coins of various wear. The first edition of the Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, which was written by PCGS and is one of the best books on US numismatics that there is, uses not only the same 1928 double eagle for their example of a liner MS65/66 Saint Gaudens and for their definition of a typical MS65 Saint Gaudens, but also uses the same 1927 double eagle for their example of a liner MS64/65 Saint Gaudens and MS63/64 Saint Gaudens. The coin images are manipulated to serve a specific purpose. This happens in other places in the book, too. Additionally, The Official ANA Grading Standards uses the identical 1837 Capped Bust quarter to illustrate not only the wear patterns of the EF45/EF40 grade range, but also for the VF30/VF20 grade range. They do this in other places for this book, too. It should be noted that image manipulation to show a representative grade or range is nothing new in coins and should not hurt anyone who is looking to learn.
Comments
www.brunkauctions.com
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Some panties bunch up faster than others. >>
I guess. lol
<< <i>also odd that they havent come to defend themself (PCGS) in this thread or help explain why they do this >>
Odd? On a Saturday night?
<< <i>I don't care if they use an etch-a-sketch to make an example >>
Exactly. To my mind, it's somewhat akin but leaves a better looking result.
It’s neat to find that a coin you own is being used as one of the illustrations, but it seems strange that the grade on the slab does not match that in the grading guide. It might be an error that PCGS will correct. Taking it beyond a mistake seems a "stretch."
<< <i>How can a digitally manipulated image of a graded coin, downgraded to fit a more accurate 'look' for a grade, be better for educational purposes than the coin graded and presented for the grade PCGS saw fit to give it?
And, if the grade doesnt match what they are looking for, why not find a coin that did match their needs without altering a coins imaged history?
Pedigrees matter to coins, and to say otherwise is a lie. Plate coins are noted for a reason, regardless if this service is for educational purposes...
If the arguement is that its for educational purposes, so is every other book written on this hobby, do they alter a coins image to the point of a new grade and look to fit their needs?
They are PCGS... TruView.... Here... Auction sites... They have to alter images and downgrade coins that collectors presently own and may be using in registries?
Am I missing something here? >>
I think some of the consternation a few folks are feeling is likely due to a mixing of the idea of a representative coin for grading purposes vs a specific coin for possible sale. In the former there is no harm in using a virtual coin while in the latter extreme accuracy is always the best policy and is truly needed for efficiency in the market.
The portion of the text I placed in bold has some significance in that it is not unheard of to use partially manipulated images or to use a single image multiple times to show coins of various wear. The first edition of the Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, which was written by PCGS and is one of the best books on US numismatics that there is, uses not only the same 1928 double eagle for their example of a liner MS65/66 Saint Gaudens and for their definition of a typical MS65 Saint Gaudens, but also uses the same 1927 double eagle for their example of a liner MS64/65 Saint Gaudens and MS63/64 Saint Gaudens. The coin images are manipulated to serve a specific purpose. This happens in other places in the book, too. Additionally, The Official ANA Grading Standards uses the identical 1837 Capped Bust quarter to illustrate not only the wear patterns of the EF45/EF40 grade range, but also for the VF30/VF20 grade range. They do this in other places for this book, too. It should be noted that image manipulation to show a representative grade or range is nothing new in coins and should not hurt anyone who is looking to learn.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson