Divo Caro: Seller photo vs in-the-hand reality

I've just uploaded 5 pictures of the same toned silver coin, taken by "Dealer 1" in 2009, a previous owner in 2012, the "dealer 1" again in 2015, "dealer 2" later in 2015 and then finally, me in 2016. Which one of these is more accurate or, alternatively, is one less accurate than the others? At the end of the day, each one represents the way this coin looks in certain lighting scenarios when held at the right angle. Under my bright LED reading light at my desk this coin looks completely different than it does sitting on my front porch on a sunny day or sitting in my often dimly-lit cubicle at work, but very rarely is the lighting correct to make it look exactly like any of the photos posted above. Such is the difficulty with toned coins, especially given that every single dealer and auction house has a different photography setup and some like CNG have multiple photography setups being used for instance for e-auctions versus printed.

As Doug said, the best you can do is learn to read images themselves. Except in exceedingly rare cases where photos are actually manipulated in such a way as to hide defects or are so out of focus that it hides defects(which IMHO is a red flag that says "don't buy me"), the differences you see are entirely consequential of differences in photography setups and not any intentional monkeying around by a seller.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was not aware of this but it makes sense. The difference between how a photo appears on a computer monitor and on a paper print can be substantial so it makes sense to allow for these differences when making photographs. There are many things to consider. I like my black background images but if I were printing them out on an in jet printerm the ink cost would be horrific compared to white backgrounds. If I were issuing a price list on cheap paper, the bleed through to the back of the page would make those images a big mistake. I find the white backgrounds most people use to be glaring on my screen and Costco charges the same for a solid black photo as for a solid white one so I made my selections accordingly. CNG and the like who make expensive printed catalogs play by completely different rules. Things like paper and ink selection are important in that universe.

 

It seems the people that use photo shop change the coin image way to much. I feel they over edit the coin to make it look perfect from their eye. I like the more realistic look with less photo shop. For slabbed coins I want to see the defects in the holder as opposed to being photo shopped than getting the slabbed coin and being surprised with a scratch in the holder that you cant get out.

 

I don't use Photoshop, but I do adjust the lighting when necessary. Otherwise, what you see is the image of the coin w/o any changes.

 

Ideally, it would be great to see an MP4 showing the coin being slowly moved around in the light. Maybe this will become standard as internet speeds get faster.

Coin photography is difficult. There's an attitude in Coin Talk that if you're a collector, you should learn coin photography.

 

The coin is certainly nice and the seller took a great photograph. It is the kind of photo that I call a "coin glamour shot."

I do not see anything wrong with the seller's photo, but as someone who sells a lot of coins online I try very hard to take photos that give an accurate representation of what the coin looks like in hand. I do this because I do not want my customer's to have the kind of reaction you are having right now. If anything I would like them to get the coin and think it looks better than my photos suggested (and given my limited skill as a photographer that isn't too hard to do).

 

Nice Carus Greg. I too would have been suprised by the color upon receipt of the coin. Yet it is still nice.