These photos do not strike me as casually taken photos and to be honest look a bit Touched up anyone else have an opinion on this?
I think the contrast is “too good to be true” when comparing the seller’s pics with the Trueviews: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/41967384 The pics don’t show the marks in the obv fields either, so I won’t try to grade the coin based on those pictures. Also the current bid is already way beyond price guide…
I would not bid on anything he is selling. All his photos are juiced. He has been around a while doing this same thing over and over. He used to be under the name toliverjamesrarecoins or something similar to that. I'm pretty sure that account was banned by eBay for likely numerous violations.
Hey, sellers try to present the item in the best possible way and more than a few companies has been accused of "doctoring" a photo to make the item look better than it does in hand, but it still comes down to "buyer beware."
Juiced photo for sure. I agree that you should make the coin look good in the photo if it looks good in person. Some pictures can make a good coin look awful. On the other hand, this guy is playing games. Here's a Proof 1883 Morgan Dollar where the cameo is for real. Some reason NGC didn't think that it is a Cameo Proof coin.
First, from the point of photography, no image is not touched up. What does that mean? The human eye is both unique and very bad. Almost all photographic mechanisms are far better than the human eye. It is the brain that makes out vision better and complete. In fact, I used the digital screen and my advanced lenses to view better the great paintings in Europe and about the world, because of the enhanced imaging. It lets you see better. So, for starters, all photographs are "touched up" by software. Without the software ( or the film etc), there is NO image. In this case, you should be aware that finely lustrous silver, when the image is straight on, will turn black like that. It indicates a really deep cameo and proof like luster. It is possible. That being said, it is hard to say it is a completely honest representation of the actual coin. It has no doubt been enhanced, all images are and it was likely enhanced specifically to exaggerate for the purposes of the sale. How truthful it is about the coins quality is hard to say without collaborating images.
Nope. Not all images are touched up. It seems you completely missed the point here. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/touch-up Definition of touch up 1: to improve or perfect by small additional strokes or alterations : fix the minor and usually visible defects or damages of
You can make the camera do most anything you want with the settings and lighting but that's not called "touch up". Set up is a better term. Touch up comes after you have an image to work with. I feel sure the OP coin was shot to make the coin look cameo and the image was touched up to help improve it even more.
Most people in photography call this post-processing. This photo has definitely been enhanced in Lightroom or similar program.
If you look at the PCGS True View photo, you see a number of small hits in the fields. You don't see them in the seller's photos. It's a nice coin, I think 64 is the correct grade.
