I want to write about photos. This post was inspired by a recent win in a Naville auction. Here is their photo: Roman Republican denarius of moneyer C. Coelius Caldus, 51 BC Portrait of an ancestor C. Coelius Caldus who was Consul in 94 BC and defeated the Salluvii in Gaul. C∙COEL∙CALDVS COS below neck. Spear and carnyx behind. The reverse is complicated: table with figure behind preparing epulum L∙CALDVS III VREP (VR ligate) on left, trophy with carynx and oval shield| on right, trophy with Macedonian shield IMPAX donw left, CCALD down right CALDVS IIIVIR below [He loved advertising his name. It is on this coin four times! Is that a record?] Crawford 437/4b. Sear I 406. The surface is bad--what I call "dry" and porous. They cited it as ex CNG in 2003 and I found an photo on-line at CNG: They only had this small image, but it confirms that the coin is dry and porous. It is rare enough that I wanted it anyway at the right price and I got it. When it arrived I was pleasantly surprised. I know my photos are not good, but I did my usual with a small camera on a copy stand and got this: This is much closer to the way the coin looks. This photo is more metallic and makes the coin look less dry. But, I still thought the coin was better, so I tried again at my desk. I propped my iPad on a 4" box and took this on a black background: This looks a lot like the coin. Sure, the coin is porous. I admit it could be a lot better. But, in hand it is not nearly as dry as the sale photos suggest. This post is about photos and compare this photo on black to the auction photos which were all I had to go on when I bought the coin. Quite a difference! (By the way, it sold for 57% of what it sold for in 2003, in nominal dollars, not inflation-adjusted dollars.) Show us another coin that turned out not to look like the sale photo!
Great thread @Valentinian Here is the seller's photo Here is my photo. The coin in hand looks like my photo.
Heritage pictures (online and print) seem to miss on color although their written descriptions correctly describe color. I attended their CICF Signature auction in 2016. Across the board, green patinas were brown in the catalog. The venue lighting was not great for photography but here's an example I saw during lot viewing: From that same auction, their online images of a different coin: To be fair, the written description did say "dark green patina with earthen edges". And my images: SICILY, Syracuse. Dionysius I (400-345 BC) Æ 20 mm, 8.23 gm Struck c. 390 BCE Obv: head of Athena left, wearing wreathed Corinthian helmet pushed back on head Rev: hippocamp left Ref: Calciati 35. SNG ANS 426 As with most Heritage lots, this coin was slabbed and upon returning home it was freed within minutes. NGC graded it MS 5/5 strike, 4/5 surfaces, Fine Style. "Mint State"... I think we've discussed that nonsense many times before. I wanted it simply because of the exceptional hippocamp
The seller's photo made this Gordian III provincial from Hadrianopolis look bluish-gray and rather lusterless: But it's actually glossy black. I photographed it in natural sunlight and this is far closer to its real appearance:
...Any FSR coin... (His images are the pits but don't let that stop you from browsing and bidding. His auctions are popular with CoinTalkers and many people have bought wonderful coins from him. You can count on the coin looking much better in hand.)
Yes, the Faustina Jr denarius came from Frank. I always know the photo will UNDERESTIMATE the quality of the coin.
Interesting thread, sometimes it's best for the buyer if the vendor presents crappy pics. I could see some detail behind this MA Shops Trajan sestertius and noticed it was reasonably cheap for a coin you hardly ever see....so took a chance. Above seller's pic...would you pay 180 Euro for this. My pic above.... I am happy with the buy.
@Ancient Aussie showed that photos do not always accurately reproduce the color of an AE coin. I often find that photos are greener than the coins. I don't know why it is green that is most often wrong. Here is a case in point. The seller's photo is first. Macrinus, 217-218, struck at Nicopolis ad Istrum. 26 mm. 11.79 grams. Hristova and Jekov 8.23.46.3 I thought it might have a nice green patina. But this is what it really looks like: This is the same photo with the color adjusted to be very close to the coin itself. The coin looks warm brown, not green.
Here are six professional pictures of the same ancient gold coin. These pictures appeared on the auction catalog or web sites of numismatic auctioneers Harlan J Berk, Classical Numismatic Group (twice), Heritage, Stack's Bowers, and the coin grading company Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. These images were taken over the span of eighteen years. The version with the red background was scanned from a printed auction catalog. All of the other images are taken directly from auction sites or the slab company's slab verification image. This coin did not change color in the last 18 years. Something about the lighting situation and the camera's color profile was different enough that each of these pictures is different. In my memory the coin looks like the middle coin on the left-hand side. Yet when I held the coin over my computer monitor in a room lit by compact florescent lights it looked like the upper right image.
Many cameras default to too much contrast and artificial sharpening routines trying to make images look sharp. I believe the seller photo suffers from this. I have said too many times that I do not believe in the concept of photos that do not look like their coins. Coins give off no light but reflect the light that falls on them. If the light is harsh and yellow, the photo will be harsh and yellow. If the light is too bright, the photo will be washed out. Camera users have controls over some of these factors but many cameras come with default settings that were not intended for coin photography. Some coins seem to photograph acceptably no matter what you do but others resist everything I try to make the photo better than the one on my driver's license. My most recent coin purchase is fighting me. I should have let the underbidder have it. Perhaps he doesn't take pictures and would not find the coin frustrating. Augustus, Amphipolis AE22 Artemis on bull (ex. last FSR sale) I do have one photo that does not look like the coin under any light but it is not ancient. The left and center pairs of this Indian $5 were made by different light arrangements and look like the coin under those lights. The right image is the other two stacked on top of each other with the transparancy of the top layer reduced until it looked pleasing to me. There is no single light arrangement that gives this look but it shows the coin in the light I wish I had to use for the photo. All three are the same coin and there are two different lightings used separately or playing together. I would love to try this on a mint state aureus of Septimius Severus from an eastern mint but that is not likely to happen.
I actually like poorly-photographed coins in eBay auctions - it keeps the bidding low. After years of looking at them, I feel I have a moderate ability to "read" a poor photo that will give me some idea of what it really looks like. To be sure, I've been burnt a few times (fakes look better blurry), but mostly it works out. Here is a seller photo of a Trajan Decius that is actually pretty nice in hand. My guess was it wasn't nearly as yellow as the images would indicate - it wasn't - it has a pretty normal gun-metal gray color: My photo isn't great, but this is more what it looks like:
I really like this Ed, I wish you had captured how each seller described the coin as well. It would be interesting to compare.
Here are the sellers' condition descriptions, not in order. I will skip telling you which seller gave which description. "AU, Strike: 5/5 Surface: 3/5" "Crisp strike details and well centered on a quality planchet." "Struck on a broad flan for issue." "Good VF, light marks on obverse." "EF" (twice) "Good VF."