An example of how auction house photos can you lead astray

After the long discussions about “The official Cointalk grading experiment 4,” thought that some members might find this example of how auction house photos can confuse you interesting. First some historical background.

The Capped Head Left, Large Diameter Quarter Eagle was issued from 1821 to 1827, with some dates missing during that period. As a type coin, the piece is very scarce because of low mintages and extensive melting. The business strike mintage was 17,042 plus less than 40 Proof coins. Dave Bowers estimates that the total number of survivors is between 330 and 460 for the business strikes plus 20 to 30 Proofs.

The dies were cut by Robert Scot. This was one his last projects, and he was showing his age. The relief was low, and I don’t find this coin to be attractive. But it is part of the early gold type set which makes it a requirement for a complete type coin collection.

Given the low mintages, many coins have P-L surfaces. If the coins are in high grade, which is rare, that can be great. A P-L gold coin can be very attractive, even if the design is not the best. If the coins are less than MS-63, that’s not so great because every mark shows up worse that it would on frosty surfaces.

I bought this coin in a Heritage auction. I did my homework and found it that had been re-submitted to PCGS from an old green label holder and had gotten a CAC sticker both times. Each time it had gotten the MS-61 grade. Here are the auction photos.



Based on these images, and the CAC stiker, I bid on the piece an got it. The close-up photos made the piece look like it was under graded. Unfortunately it really looked like this.




I got my money out of the piece because CAC bought it, but I learned a lesson. I am gotten pretty good at interpreting Heritage photographs. Heritage has improved them, and when you have both the full slab images and the close-ups, I have developed the ability to avoid surprises.

Still, it is far better if you can see the coins in person, but you can’t always do that. If you are going to bid based on photos, you are well advised to spend some time looking at various coins both in person and with the photos. It's a learning experience that is well worthwhile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Being new to Heritage pics, and mediocre at grading, (gold is harder for me) I've noticed/learned that their pics tend to subdue contract marks, but show luster breaks well.

 

I am not a photographer but have a clear picture in my mind of how to turn a light source a certain way to hide a coins flaws. Same thing works when you photograph a car for sale..... You think the major auction houses use lighting angles to show a coins "better side" so to speak? It would certainly seem to be so from your example.

 

Years ago Heritage used to over expose some of their photos. They do a lot less of that today.

Here are photos of the type coin that is now in my collecton. Both of these views are accurate depending upon how you look at the piece. I bought this NGC MS-61 graded piece at a coin show for a good deal less than the previous coin.



The angle shot which picks up the luster.

 

A lesson unto itself.

 

As I said above in the other thread, you are definitely correct about the fact that we are grading photographs, not coins. In hand, it can be a completely different story. Photographs can be intentionally deceptive, based on lighting, and photo editing, or just plain poor photography.

 

It is just difficult for me as a businessman knowing that my business can live or die based on my reputation.... Just difficult for me to think a major auction house would offer intentionally deceiving photographs of coins of this magnitude.

 

Intentionally deceptive? Yes, to a degree. Enhanced and over saturated photographs, exaggerating luster are far from unusual. Photographing from a favorable angle, in the best possible light—sure! Photo editing to remove marks, nicks, carbon spots, defects, yes. In many cases, it is not intentionally deceptive photographs, but just lousy photography.

 

Heritage doesn't take the best photographs, but I don't think the photo was misleading, and certainly not intentionally misleading. Besides, you can return coins to Heritage if you don't like it in hand. I've done it twice before. They are very professional and courteous about it.

 

They accept returns for auctions?

 

Yes, for most auctions. But you should always review the terms and conditions of the particular auction to confirm and to understand the rules.

For example:


COINS and CURRENCY TERM B: Auctions conducted solely on the Internet THREE (3) DAY RETURN


POLICY: Certified Coin and Uncertified and Certified Currency lots paid for within seven days of the Auction closing are sold with a three (3) day return privilege unless otherwise noted in the description as “Sold As Is, No Return Lot”. You may return lots under the following conditions: Within three days of receipt of the lot, you must first notify Auctioneer by contacting Client Service by phone (877-HERITAGE (437-4824)) or e-mail (Bid@HA.com), and immediately ship the lot(s) fully insured to the attention of Returns, Heritage, 3500 Maple Avenue, 17th Floor, Dallas TX 75219-3941. Lots must be housed intact in their original holder and condition. You are responsible for the insured, safe delivery of any lots. A non-negotiable return fee of 5% of the purchase price ($10 per lot minimum) will be deducted from the refund for each returned lot or billed directly. Postage and handling fees are not refunded. After the three-day period (from receipt), no items may be returned for any reason. Late remittance for purchases revokes these Return privileges.

 

I agree. There are folks who are adamant about their own grading standards, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

It can work the other way as well

Heritage photos

 

Maybe an extra photographer or two would allow the time necessary to give more precise pics, at least the more expensive ones.

 

If you think I'm conservative, you should meet Bill Noyes, the copper guy. He makes me look like the most liberal grader on the planet. Ditto for many of the other Early American Copper collectors, but Noyes is the toughest.

As for the way I grade that has to do with the school of hard knocks from the time that I was a teenage, trying sell some coins I'd bought to dealers to the years when I was a dealer selling many four and five figure coins, including your Morgan dollars. I have spent many hours studying Brown & Dunn, "Photograde," "The ANA Grading Guide" and tens of thousands of coins over a lifetime.

Are the grading standards changing? Sure. The grading services need to find ways to drum up more business. Relaxing the standards encourages collectors to re-submit their old holders for upgrades. I know it's happening, but I'm not going to become a party to promoting it.

As for the upgrades collectors are getting, it's like a dog chasing its tail. The standards get watered down; people see they are getting poorer coins for the given grade; and the prices come down. That's why coins like a 1916-D Mercury Dime in VF looks so cheap. When you go out to buy the coin, you find out that what used to be VG is now VF. If you want all of the lines on the ax, you have to buy an EF at a minimum.

It's been that way for years. The grading services have long been liberal with grades for circulated key date coins. Now they are going after the Mint State pieces which is one of the reasons why they came into existence. Now the sliders are becoming Mint State pieces and the "mule train" is running up the line.

 

I was not referring to you,specifically, in terms of grading standards. There is a strong contingent of people on this board that question all TPG grading across the boards. Likewise, there is an equally strong contingent of people that feel that TPGs do make mistakes, but get it right most of the time.

 

If I thought that PCGS and NGC were that bad, I would not have the collection that I have. But if you naively think that you can buy a huge percentage of the coins in your collection based upon the grades on the holder, you are wearing blinders.

I’ve known a couple of dealers who didn’t really know how to grade, who thought they could buy their inventory based on the Grey or Blue Sheets and the grading numbers on the holders. They didn’t last very long.

There’s lots of sup-par stuff out there in holders. Some of it is properly graded, but lacks eye appeal. Some of it is over graded. At lot of it ends up going to people who don’t know they have been blindsided until it comes time to sell. A lot of the really good material is in "strong hands" which why it's so hard to buy good coins these days.

One of the worst things you can do is get involved with these “collector clubs” you see advertised in the magazines. For X dollars a month, you get certified coins for “half of retail.” When you get is the junk the dealers couldn’t sell elsewhere.

Certification is good for authenticity, which is fundamentally important. It’s good for avoiding the worst problem coins. But you think you are protected by the certification grading claims, I’d suggest that you need to rethink your position.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but even back when the TPGS got started, weren't there still many folks/dealers believing the grades were off, even though they were much stricter then???

 

In my experience, both PCGS and NGC started out grading very conservatively. This is why you see people going ga-ga over coins over “rattle holders” (PCGS) and NGC “fatty holders” or the holders with the gold inlay logos. The very earliest NGC holders had black, not white, inserts. Those are collectors’ items in and of themselves, and the few examples I have seen were very conservatively graded.

There are those who think that the PCGS holders with the “Old Green Labels” (OGL) are all conservatively graded. There is some truth to that, but you can’t blindly take it the bank. There are some of those coins that might not grade today if they were cracked out.

The first three coins I had graded circa 1988 were all under graded. In one instance I got big trade-in on a common date $5 gold piece for the 1794 half dime in AU-50 that is sitting in my collection today. A $5 Indian eventually upgraded from AU-58 to MS-63. I had $10 Liberty that went from MS-64 to MS-65.

The main complaint in the early days was that the grading services were too strict although, as with everything, there are exceptions.