A study of online marketing by Great Southern Coins

As it pertains to photos matching the coin in hand - this is a problem as old as photography, at least COLOR photography. Prior to color, contrast was ALWAYS a subjective choice by the print maker. Papers were graded 1 through 5 for contrast, so there's that. But when color transparencies came on the scene (1939 World's Fair, New York - Kodachrome consumer film) the issue about making prints from those transparencies became a hot issue (some via internegatives, some via chemical reversal). Trying to get a print to "match" the transparency was ALWAYS controversial. The materials seems to enhance contrast but suppress color fidelity. I can't begin to tell you how much time I wasted on these issues in the 70's, 80's, and 90s.

One of the basic problems is transparencies were ALWAYS judged by TRANSMITTED light (duh!), and prints by reflected light. It just ain't possible to MATCH ANYTHING that way. Same with emitted light from a monitor "matching" reflected light from a METALLIC object in your hand. THEY ARE NOT EVER GONNA "MATCH"! You have to learn to interpret the differences. I've got almost 40 years experience at that stuff. It makes "reading" a GSC image a snap for me.

By the way, starting in the mid-80's Eastman Kodak was artificially "juicing" the contrast in ALL their consumer films. It was about the time they started using " the colors of your life" slogans. Paul Anka singing, "Good morning yesterdayyyy, you wake up, and time has slipped awayyy..." They discovered people LIKED juiced up contrast and saturation, so it became "a thing". Kodacolor was no longer good enough. Nor Kodacolor-X or Kodacolor-II, but now Kodacolor Plus. Plus what? Plus all kinds of contrast and saturation that wasn't really there when you shot the picture.

One thing I'll say for GSC that I can't say for most eBay sellers - at least their photos aren't blur-fests, like far too many of them. Truth be told, I'm still using Photoshop 7.0, and it looks like GSC uses an "unsharp mask" on every shot. Unlike what you'd assume from the name, it sharpens pictures. Every negative or transparency I scan these days (Epson 750 Pro Photo) gets the "unsharp mask" treatment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is the worst. Had to return what appear to be a nice original 32-D quarter. When I got it it looked like someone hit it with a Brillo pad! Grr...

 

Case study: 1913-D Buffalo Nickel "1913-D Buffalo Nickel, Type 1 Better Date ** Free Shipping!"

Original Vendor Photos (joined by me for display)


Impressions
When this arrived I was disappointed. Here is what I did not like:

• My impression was of a white lifeless coin without any luster.
• The vendor's photo is so dark it obscures the weakness along the top of LIBERTY and the corresponding position on the reverse, in the 3:00 to 4:00 position.

Analysis
There is a huge difference between their photos and what I saw. It is obviously the same coin based on the grain pattern on the reverse, but their photos are dramatically underexposed. With less illumination, the contours are more sharply emphasized.

Worse, the coin felt wrong. Literally. It looks like it is masked in something cloudy and I could feel a grainy / sticky resistance when I touched it. I rubbed the rim with my thumb and I could feel this texture coming off.

I rinsed the coin in distilled water, then acetone, then xylene to see if I could remove this film. The coin still looked dry and lifeless. I tried a drop of VerdiCare (even though there is no corrosion) and used a Q-tip to make sure the surface was covered. I blotted off any excess and let it dry for two days.

Conclusions
I do not know what happened to this coin. I have never dipped a coin, but the filmy dullness and unpleasant feel makes me suspect a chemical treatment of some sort. (Note, there is still a green spot of corrosion on the outside of the rim. Of course, nobody shows photographs of the edges.) Whatever happened, it did not hurt the overall sharpness.

I could understand a new collector feeling they got a terrible coin. If I didn't have a few tricks at hand, I would feel that way too.

Between the very dark photograph, the possibility of treated corrosion, the chalky appearance, and the unpleasant feel, this would be a coin that inexperienced buyers should not have bought.

Here is the coin after rejuvenation. I like the detail and it now has a bit of shine to it. There is a great strike - split tail, nice rounding of the foreleg, and all the sculptural elements well brought forth. I think the coin is worth the $53.70 I have invested.

 

This one is pretty egregious. Nice job on the restoration, though. Superb. The way it is now, I'd pay about $75 or so for it without blinking an eye. To me, it's worth a "woodie premium".

 

Now, let's talk about a 1913-S Type II.

 

Case study: 1907 Indian Head cent "1907 Indian Head Penny, Red-Brown, Choice BU++/Near Gem BU ** Free Shipping!"

Original Vendor Photos (joined by me for display)


Impressions
When this arrived I was thrilled. The coin has terrific cartwheel luster. The bust and wreath are just a bit darker than the fields, providing a delightful contrast when tilting the coin in the light.

The GSC photo shows a mark to the left of the 1 in the date. It is not apparent whether this is dirt or damage.

Analysis
After I took the pictures I was somewhat disappointed. I saw that the cheek, tip of the top feather, and fields looked dirtier than I thought at first.


For comparison purposes, I took these photographs of a 1900 that is graded MS64 in an NGC holder (2668473-002). This made me feel better, as did the sample photo at the NGC Coin Explorer site. The fields have the same darkening, and the tip of the top feather has the same strike and appearance.

I also took new photos that were less dark, and those show the luster better. The first animation was taken at .7 stop underexposed, while the one below is .3 stops underexposed. I think if I used any longer exposure I would start to blow out the bright highlights.


Conclusions
The spot to the left of the date appears to be a planchet flaw. There isn't pushed-up metal that you would see from an impact.

I think the GSC style of a dark photo was not appropriate for this coin. The fields look spotted but in hand they have quite even coloration. I was expecting a little bit of red remaining; I got a coin with brilliant flashy luster.

I think the coin is a solid MS64 and I am glad to have it for $27.00.

 

.

 

How are YOU determining your "normal" exposure? The method can matter a great deal. Are you using a (this will date me) 18% reflection gray card?

 

I originally used a gray card to set the white balance, but the whole operation is appallingly seat-of-the-pants.

I don't have an official gray card so I don't trust my makeshift one to be either neutral gray or 18%.

As for exposure, I only have in-camera metering. The video feed of my old Sony is meant for showing slideshows on a TV. If you patch it into a monitor it gives an ersatz live view capability. This is where I get my exposure reading - shown as the last of the four readings across the bottom.

I can't fill the sensor with the image; I can't see the coin in focus; white balance is a guess; and I set exposure by eye by comparing the blurry screen image to the coin under the lights. Usually the camera reports this as -.7 or -.3eV.

I don't really know what I have until I upload it into the computer. At best I can get 850x850 pixels for a cent-sized coin. I check color accuracy by sending the final image to my iPhone to check it there.

I hope this sorta wanders by the vicinity of an answer. My photos are more luck than science!

 

That's all good stuff. I'm playing around with a newer Sony, the alpha6000, with manual exposure, using a Canon FD 100mm Macro f4 (to be able to get out of the way of my lights) and a Canon FD to Sony E mount adapter. I'm using the same adapter and body plus a Canon FD 300mm f4 lens for the eclipse. Test shot it yesterday with and without a Canon FD 2x-A Extender. Suweeet! I could ALMOST read licenses on the Turnpike, over a mile away. I could determine auto makes. The copy stand is an old Polaroid MP4, a virtual "tank" among copy stands. I used to shoot 4x5 copy negs and internegatives (lit by upside down Chromega D color enlarger head) with it. I want smaller bulbs for the lights. Right now it has those massive flood lamps. They ruin luster.

 

As far as I can see, no other system has more lens adapters available for other brands' legacy glass than the Sony E-mount system. Everything from Zeiss Contarex to Canon EF. Amazing variety.

 

Photographic skills of sellers make for a wide Belle Curve, and the sophistication of many of you in here as buyers far exceeds the capabilities of most sellers except for camera or scan work from extremely experienced or talented folks. My eye is not as keen as many of you, so I am a bit more lenient and or maybe just less advantaged when buying from photographs.

Also makes one think hard about meeting someone from an online dating site without an escape plan.

SilverWilliesCoins.com
Bill

 

Let's call this case study, the Procrastinator's Special. I purchased the following 1939-D Rev of 38 Jefferson Nickel from GSC on 6/27/2017 for MS65 retail price. Of course GSC's grade was GEM BU+++.



As usual, their photos of the coin were amazing and gave me the impression that I had a very good chance at a premium gem grade. Then the coin arrived.



My initial concern was that the coin was actually an AU58 slider and as much as I wanted to prove to Kurt that GSC uses deceptive photos, I really couldn't justify throwing good money after bad. Anyone interested in reading my thoughts about the coin in real time, feel free to read the thread linked below.

Grade my 1939-D Reverse of 38 Jefferson Nickel

So after nearly 2.5 years, I finally decided to have the coin graded.




So the coin didn't live up to the advertised grade of GSC as it came back lower than the gem grade, but it also showed that you can cherrypick GSC's inventory, even if you do it accidentally like I did. The inclusion of the 5 full step designation will allow me to recoup my investment in this coin and perhaps make a small profit. That said, I still think their photos are enhanced and that the actual appearance of the coin bears very little resemblance to their advertised photos.

 

All of the 3 cent nickels I bought from them which were described as Gem BU+++ received NGC UNC details grades. I won't ever buy from them again. Their auction prices get ridiculously high.