Heritage Pics vs. Actual, Not Always Accurate

I haven't purchased many coins from Heritage auctions, but I can say I haven't been super pleased with their photography of the coins. I bid and won a proof Mercury last week. The coin looked heavily toned, but when I got it in hand today, it is much lighter, and even lighter than my pic shows. I researched it online on the NGC app and it looked a lot different than Heritage's. Anyone else run into this? I am actually more pleased with the way it turned out than Heritage's pic.
Heritage's Pics Below




My Pics

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Heritage images are often flat and lifeless, while a coin can look quite lustrous and vibrant in hand. For a long time, I thought they were scans; BUT, HA actually does photograph the slabs -- but they use a ton of diffusion and thus the images look flat.

I was delighted with a recent purchase from Heritage (see below):

Heritage images:


My images:

 

Heritage;



My pictures;

 

That's because the majority of heritage images are scans not pictures

 

I don't know if the way they make images of coins is all that bad. I appreciate that HA is not trying to "put a shine" on the coins. The important thing is that you get clear images that aren't hiding anything.

My question: Why not more images for each auctioned coin? Some under this lighting, and some under a different lighting that would reveal "luster"?

 

First time. Second money. Third time costs more money.

 

Very nice

 

Actually, they are not. I used to think that too, until I saw several photos of their photography room. ALL of their pictures are taken by high end DSLR cameras. The problem is that the images are shot with massively diffused lighting, and thus they look like scans.

 

With the right photo would you have bid more ?

 

I think they are doing their consigners a disservice by not providing the best photography of the coins. Each coin needs to be lit to specifically show off it's qualities. I have an Indian Head that if it was not shot correctly would not show off the amazing color it has. I'd be upset if my coin sold for less than it could have if photographed properly.

 

That's a heck of an improvement! Congrats brg5658.

Best Regards,

George

 

My "bid" was significantly more than I ended up paying...so, I would have paid more, but I put in my max bid, so I wouldn't have bid more. If that makes sense.

 

Yea

 

Whenever I sell my coins in ebay, if it has interesting toning, I try to take multiple images from different angles. I usually only pick the ones that best represent true in-hand representation. I am not dissatisfied with the way my coin turned out. I was just shocked at the difference, and how dark their pic looked. I haven't been able to replicate their color.

 

If you want to see why Heritage images are so "dull" then you should read this thread, and look at the pictures there. They shoot their lights through thick white paper, and they leave on the overhead fluorescent lighting when photographing. That method is bound to give you a washed out flat look to images.

 

Neat picture of Heritage's photo room. The assembly line approach is what it takes to shoot as many coins as they do in the time they do it. They're clearly looking for consistency and throughput, not in optimal pictures. The high-end coins, however, get special treatment, as they are also photographed for their print catalog.

 

WOW! I guess I am not the only one with 2X4's. Their diffusers (or what ever they are called) are TAPED to 2X4's. At least I used screws.

 

Here is another example of Heritage's pics vs. NGC's. I have found NGC's to be much more accurate in the past. Will find out when I get it in hand.

Heritage


NGC