Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Tamaracian, post: 8052664, member: 23122"]In a post by [USER=119822]@Coll3ctor[/USER] (5/25/21) there were comments from some members concerning their viewpoint of Great Collections’ (GC) photography, excerpted as follows: @Plubius2 “...although sometimes I can fault their photography.”; [USER=56370]@KSorbo[/USER] “Photos are brighter than HA. Not saying that’s good or bad, just an observation.”; [USER=114635]@Tall Paul[/USER] “GC could do a better job on their photographs…”; [USER=74624]@wxcoin[/USER] “I disagree with the comment about their photos; I think they are excellent when zoomed.”; @ksparro “I think they could improve their photos some...” To help answer that, I have posted images of two coins, from Top to Bottom: (1) eBay Seller’s Images (2) PCGS TrueView (3) GC’s Images Following the photos is some background info from my dealings with GC and from my Coin Facts Reply Postings concerning GC. [ATTACH=full]1394687[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394689[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394693[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394695[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394698[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1394699[/ATTACH] BACKGROUND A few months ago I had been perusing eBay and came across a Dealer that had listings of coins that purportedly come from original rolls (pics of the broken-open rolls were included in the listing, and some of the wrappers had the Year Date of the issue, and a Bank name that was identifiable to that era thru research on my part) that had been “broken out” and listed individually; these coins exhibited original toning to some degree, and ALL had significant original mint luster. The Dealer’s photos were sharp, zoom-able, and well-lighted, except that a mix of tungsten “fill” lighting and daylight lighting sources were used, in which the tungsten "fill" lighting cast areas of medium amber on parts of the coin (accentuating any existing toning). I decided that the photos were “good enough” for me to make a bid on several of them, and I wound up winning two: a 1914 and a 1937-D Buffalo Nickel. Both coins were very well struck and lustrous, with original toning. These coins were sent raw to GC for transfer to PCGS, and then to CAC; they graded as I thought they would based upon the original eBay source photos and visual inspection after receipt. Comparing the eBay vs. PCGS TrueView vs. GC Images disclosed that the eBay Seller’s Images—although sharp—hid some of the “hits” on both coins because of the use of tungsten “fill” lighting which overshadowed some areas with medium amber simulated toning, and rendered the coin’s surfaces especially reflective. The PCGS TrueView and GC Images—in my opinion—showed ALL of the hits on both coins and equal detail in the Enlarged Images. The PCGS TrueView Images—in my opinion—have the best overall combination of clarity and contrast, with a natural rendering of any toning present, but also slightly less luster than the coin actually shows in hand. The GC Images typically present as lighter—or even washed-out—compared to these specific eBay and PCGS Images. NOTE: for comparison, older Heritage Auctions (HA) and Stacks-Bowers (SB) Images also appeared lighter or washed-out, but have improved significantly in recent years. For coins that have significant toning—where GC includes “Toned” in the Listing, the toning does show up in their images, but not as intense in saturation as compared to the PCGS TrueView Images. If you ask GC, they may include an additional photo(s) of a toned coin, or a PL or DMPL, to help the Listing get more interest: In 2015, I had a discussion with Ian Russell (President of GC) about a Lot of coins that I had just sent to him for auction, which included an 1883-CC MS66 DMPL with beautiful peripheral toning in an old ANACS Slab (small white), that their photos didn't adequately show the toning. I mentioned that PCGS Coin Facts photos were IMO the best, and seemed to always show the true color and saturation of any toning present, and why didn't GC's photos look similar; Ian mentioned PCGS and other major TPGs and Auction Houses have Proprietary Photo Setups that he doesn't have access to, so that when his firm was first launched in 2010, his staff took about 6 months to get a setup that would adequately show a coin's true nature (to include defects, hairlines, marks, scrapes, and wear) but that whatever toning was present may not show up as very saturated, and that is why GC photos may look lighter than the competition or even washed-out. Ian did agree to have closeups of both sides retaken so that the peripheral toning would show up better—it worked, the coin sold for $2,037.50 and had 32 Bids. NOTE: GC discontinued using supplied PCGS TrueView images about 5 years ago. In a previous post (11/1/21) I had mentioned that I have had 25 Lots (217 Items) auctioned on GC, most of which were purchased raw from eBay and other internet sources. I have found in many cases that the photos in the these Listings did not show the true nature of the coin when finally received in hand (e.g. defects, cleaning, hairlines, marks, scrapes, and wear) because the photos may have been unsharp, taken on an angle, inadequately lighted, or lighted with a source that casts an unnatural hue to the coin’s surface, and therefore, quite a few of these were returned to the Seller. My personal opinion from having sold many coins on GC is that they did well from the standpoint of the number of bids versus final sales price, and that the Images were adequate. I would rather have the GC photos that show ALL characteristics of the coin's surfaces—even if they appear washed-out—because I know that the coin will look "better in the hand", but perhaps those not familiar with GC might have a different opinion—WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? For those of you who might be interested in the Auction and its Images, the Links can be found at the Coin Talk For Sale (WTS) Forum.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches