Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 2746239, member: 77413&quot;]Many heated opinions have been expressed on this forum about buying coins from Great Southern Coins (referred to as GSC). I think many of us (and newer collectors) would benefit from a precise study of GSC&#039;s photos compared to the actual coins received.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have bought from them about four times now, and I downloaded their photos for each purchase. I will use these photos and my own photos for a series of case studies. Anyone is welcome to add their analysis about photographic techniques, the visibility or masking of surface features, whether tradeoffs are made (say, in eye appeal vs. clinical accuracy vs. toning vs. luster), postprocessing, image presentation on the web, and so on. I would like to throw a little more light and a little less heat on understanding GSC’s photos. In the process, we may learn something applicable to all online photographs.</p><p><br /></p><p>I preface this analysis with my own experience. I have felt disappointed upon opening my package and first seeing the coins I received. These coins are the exact coins in the photos and I can match up the surface marks to prove it. Upon reflection, the fault was not with the photos, but with my ability to interpret them. The information was all there for me.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let’s make this another opportunity for teaching. We can compare GSC’s photos detail by detail to the actual coins, using our own photos with varying lighting and exposures. I will start if off.</p><p><br /></p><p>Some members have stated that the photos are small and poor quality, while others can expand the same photos to a large size with excellent fidelity. I hope to also discuss the differences in their photos on different devices. My initial premise is: their photos are consistent, accurate, and not doctored, if for no other reason than that&#039;s too time-consuming for their volume of sales. (I would use a fixed setup and just pop each coin in front of the camera for a quick shot and go on to the next.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I think education is key here; we also need to learn what we are talking about by examining and proving the accusations that are made. Whether they are reputable or perfect may not be the point after all; we won’t change them. What we may be able to change is our skill in seeing what is in their photos, then working within those parameters to wisely choose to bid or not to bid.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Case Study 1. 1890 Indian Head Cent Proof <i>“1890 Indian Head Penny PROOF, Richly Toned Choice GEM PF++”</i></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Original Vendor Photos (joined by me for display)</b></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627916[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627917[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627918[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Impressions</b></p><p><br /></p><p>When this arrived I was disappointed. I posted the coin in another thread back in January and the consensus was that it is a proof.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is what I did not like:</p><p><br /></p><p>·&nbsp; My impression was of a brown, lifeless coin. Here is a photo like that.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627919[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>·&nbsp; There is a spot of corrosion above the middle bead of the necklace.</p><p><br /></p><p>·&nbsp; There might be the beginning of corrosion to the left of the D and at the 2:00 position above the headdress.</p><p><br /></p><p>·&nbsp; The back has a spot that looks suspect near the shield.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627921[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Analysis</b></p><p><br /></p><p>The GSC photos do show these artifacts, but it is not simple to know what they are.</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; Toning – The first photo above shows that the height of the obverse image is not the same as the reverse. (The reverse is taller.) The obverse image turns out to be 493 pixels wide and 473 pixels tall. This means that the coin was tilted on the vertical axis while being imaged. After doing some math, that foreshortening corresponds to a tilt of 16.4 degrees. I usually shoot at a much shallower angle.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Holding the coin in the sun, I see that the colors flash when I tip its 2x2 about half an inch towards the light. That is about the same angle. I went back and photographed it again, and came up with this image after several tries. You need to tilt the platform, readjust the light positions, and shoot about 1.0 to 1.3 stops underexposed.</p><p>[ATTACH=full]627922[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627923[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It seems that their photo is <i>still better</i> than my best effort. But at least I can tell that the photo is not juiced in any way – it’s just really good.</p><p><br /></p><p>2.&nbsp; The obverse spots are not as visible in their single obverse shot as they are in my less colorful shot. But my glamour shot, just like theirs, essentially hides the questionable spots buried in all the color.</p><p><br /></p><p>3.&nbsp; The reverse shot shows the exact same pink bullseye next to the shield as mine. Only my dull shot shows that there may be a pinprick of corrosion developing. With that knowledge in hand, I might deduce that a chemical reaction is starting to spread from that spot, and that the results of that reaction are causing a deposition on the surface, and that those depositions create a thin-film interference pattern that shows as a pink splotch.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Conclusions</b></p><p><br /></p><p>I am cautious about my conclusions. Your reactions may be stronger.</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; GSC is disingenuous, but probably not any more so than the industry norm. They could have written a description that pointed out the potential flaws. They could have provided a photo in addition to the glamour shot that allowed a more clinical inspection of the coin. Yet I cannot hold them to a standard that few others meet, either.</p><p><br /></p><p>2.&nbsp; The photograph is really good. I have not matched its quality yet. I can use their photo to match the flaws I see in hand, but I just cannot interpret them (yet).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>3.&nbsp; I still do not know if the coin would grade. Perhaps, as some say, it was already graded and in a Details holder. Or, maybe the flaws I identified would keep it from grading. Or, maybe it is PF64. This uncertainty lingers because the coin is ungraded and because of a cloud of suspicion around GSC’s practices.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>4.&nbsp; In this case, for this coin, I feel the GSC coin was well represented by the glamor shot they chose to show. Overall, I like the coin, do not fret about the tiny flaws, and do not have any reason to feel disappointed.</p><p><br /></p><p>Please feel free to expand upon these initial observations. Other examples are welcome; I hope to continue with others of my own.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]627924[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in