I just learned after speaking with an HA representative for a half hour yesterday that if a Heritage coin being auctioned is worth in the low $1000's (ie $2000,1500,etc) and not a top tier coin, they will more than likely be subjected to being scanned and not digital photo taken. You can see the white background of the flatbed scanner if you look behind the clear plastic in the PCGS slabbed coins. That's why my 3 legger(lot 293 of auction 1132) looked better than it did on HA's page.. Because the lumination of the flatbed increased its lighting by 5x or more.. When I got the coin(although still gorgeous) did not have that white buttery look like the photo on Heritage gave off. Same thing I bet happened with the gold toned 3 legger that went for $1725 on Oct. 24th of this year.. I think someone paid more than they should have for possibly a less detailed less bright coin than what the picture made it out to be. Just a little note for anyone who bids on Heritage's coins worth in the low thousands.. Don't trust the picture, if you really are uncertain about the coin's color, ask for another picture to be taken (and make sure it's taken by digital camera) if they have the time. bnb
A good point. But there is one advantage that a scanner has over a camera - the sanner tends to pick up detail better and show any flaws the coin may have where a camera often does not show them. And contrary to popular belief a scanner can show color and luster just as well as any camera. You just have to know how.
I suppose, however in the case of my 3 legger, there was absolutely more lighting exposed on the obv/rev more than likely due to the flatbed's lumination while scanning that caused it to look a lot brighter than it originally was. From my experience this is an anomaly and Heritage's coins usually look more or less like the original picture they have posted on their Auctions. This could have just been a fluke, but I believe if the coin looks to good to be true, second guess their photo taking process and request a new photo to be taken. The disparity here with my 3 legger was when I saw the NGC Verification page's photos(thanks to illini) and compared them with the original HA photos. They were very stark in contrast. To argue my own argument however, I can say this, if the 3 legger can look THAT good even with exposed lighting, then it must be a good coin because dull and ugly coins still can't survive even the most lighting exposure. That's where the flaws in color and detail seem to be pointed out the most. bnb
To be honest with you I do not agree that scanners use too much light. It is just easier and faster to use a scanner than a camera. With a scanner, the light is always consistent and at the right angle. With a camera the light has to be adjusted, often several times, in intensity and angle in order to get the picture to come out right. But realize this, any picture, with a scanner or a camera, of a coin being offered for sale is going to be taken in such a way as to make the coin look as good as it can look. Very seldom will you see what I would consider to be honest pictures.
I 100% disagree with that statement. Scanners are HORRIBLE for coins. They way over-saturate and the images look nothing like the coin in hand. This is especially true with coins that have a patina. The scanner light cuts completely through the patina so you have no idea what the coin really looks like. The scanner picks up things that are NOT on the coin due to odd reflections. It produces a very flat image....afterall, they were designed for flat objects....not coins. With a camera I am able to produce a picture that much more accurately portrays what the coin looks like in hand. I can adjust lighting, angles and distance to produce an accurate representation....you CANNOT do that with a scanner.
Heritage has been improving their pictures recently. Especially for toned coins, they appear to have been making an effort to take better pictures. They have a large number of beautiful shillings up right now, and many of them have pretty good photos.
Well this explains why sometimes I can increase the size of a coin to see nothing but the date and sometimes I can only increase it enough to get half the coin.
BNB: This may well be your finest, most well written and thoughtfully composed post to date. It has information based on your experiences and relates issues that we all grapple with, not just from Heritage, but in how an auctioned coin is represented, regarding coin photography and the techniques employed for representing coins by auction houses esp. those viewed online/remotely. I think it really shows a lot of your growth, development and time spent invested in Heritage, the hunt for your 'perfect' 3-legger and how you look at and decide on your coins. Big ups on this thread!!! :thumb:
Doug, you've shown a pic before when we had this discussion. Would you please show a picture of a coin you've taken with a scanner? Doug certainly knows how to do it properly.
Thanks for the info BNB, I thought for sure that image of Heritage was using was a scan, but I thought someone else posted otherwise on one of the other threads.
BNB, Heritage's images are often very good. They are huge and you can blow them up and get a great close up view of the surfaces of the coin. However, many times their images can be off in one regard or another. The problem is that they are off in so many different ways that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to predict which images are good and which are bad. Here are some examples of what I am talking about. Overexposed: I would have to say this is the most common problem with Heritage images. The overexposure hides minor flaws on the surface of the coin that become readily apparent in a more accurate photo and in hand. (Heritage-left:Lehigh-right) White Balance: Routinely the white balance goes crazy at Heritage and dipped white coins appear toned. Another Peace Dollar example speaks for itself. (Heritage-left:Lehigh-right) Color Capture: Given the assembly line nature of the Heritage imaging system due to incredibly high volume, colorfully toned coins that often need to be tilted in order to capture the color and true beauty of the coin are left looking like ugly ducklings. Buyers who know how to recognize these coins and accurately predict what the coins will look like in hand can make a lucrative living selling these toned coins at a nice premium to the Heritage price. (Heritage-left:Lehigh-right) Color Confusion: Sometimes a Heritage coin will show up with over-sized images in addition to slab images. To this date, I don't know the criteria for a coin to get the over-sized images. What I do know is that the over-sized photo can sometimes be drastically different in color than the actual coin. I have actually seen the over-sized photo be drastically different than the slab image presented in the same auction lot. This coin in my collection more than any other illustrates my point. (Heritage-top:Lehigh-bottom) Missed the Boat: Extremely rare in occurence, Heritage does strike out swinging with their images on occasion. This coin is a Battle Creek Morgan Dollar that was originally auctioned by Superior. The Heritage results are so bad they are comical. If I consigned this coin, I would insist they either re-image the coin or pull it from the auction. They really are that bad. Every time I see the abomination in the top right, I break into laughter. (Heritage-top:Superior-bottom left:Lehigh-bottom right) Every time I am convinced that Heritage has overcome their imaging problems, I see another completely unacceptable image attached to a Heritage auction lot. Having said that, I still think their images are better than every other major auction house.
great post Lehigh! I have to say though, in regards to that last dollar posted. To me, it looks like that Morgan is just plain hard to capture
