Calling all owners of coin sites

As for the error label, I don't count those as error "coins" but just note that (a) despite being experts with trained eyes, sometimes they do make mistakes and (b) some people collect slabs with errors on the label. (I actually have an error coin that has an error label.)

The book is mainly the errors, varieties, and counterfeits I have in my collection so my family knows what I have. Then I figured I need to explain definitions, explain the grading system, explain why they are errors, estimate values based on auction sales, and privide annotated photos. I realized I might as Well just write a book

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well I have never known where the error labels come from and I doubt it is the graders. I think it is likely a production error when the coin gets slabbed.

As for error labels I also have a few and they are a nice rarity. But that is a matter of cost and timing. For example, I have a Stone Mountain DDO that when slabbed was not a recognized variety, so it was labeled with an E designation. Today it is a recognized variety and just get the DDO label. Same variety, different era.

The accuracy of the TPG's and in particular PCGS is pretty amazing. I purchased 1,000 1881-O Morgans for a study and found only 2 mislabeled as 1881-S. I was also surprised that when you lined them all up side-by-side the grading accuracy is obvious and I think pretty amazing. There is a coin or two I might argue with, but not many.

If I were going to do a study like yours I might find someone at the TPG's as a designated reviewer of your work to be sure explanations are factual. Some of my coins in rattler holders were done when there were fewer grades and that effects what we now think of as grade.

But sounds like you are planning to do a lot of research and I wish you luck.

 

Honestly, I am only mentioning them in passing with a couple paragraphs. I am limiting the types of errors to those in my collection, but I need to explain what is featured on a slab so they understand it (what D/S means, O/C, planchet, blank, and some variety terms like RPM and doubled die. Also what AU, MS, PR, and other grades mean, what the numbering system reflects, why it is hard to grade errors, and why there really isnt a peice guide for most).

95% of it are annotated, enlarged photos of my personal errors; the other 5% explains definitions, processes, what things like mintmarks mean, comparisons to what they look like normal, and even though i dont have any in my collection, what "details", "body bag", and other terms mean.

 

No offense taken, I am not an expert by any stretch, you're right about that. Think of this more like a research project over time. I'm not writing things that I pull out of thin air. So it'll be slow going because each coin, topic, or series I write about will need to be researched beyond any knowledge I may already have. That's why I know this is an ambitious and long term project. Now, that being said, I don't intend for this to be the next great resource topping the google search results. I intend to target long tail keywords, perhaps keywords that are commonly searched by those with little or no prior coin knowledge. It will probably have the feel of an internet marketing site to some extent because that's my background and experience. I'm not sure yet, it's in it's infancy for sure. Everything of course will be editable and updated if new or better information is learned. But I totally get what you're saying and it's part of the reason I'm intending to go slow. I used to churn out an entire website in a week, wait a couple weeks/months for a to rank and see the money start to trickle in.

This is interesting, I've never come across this. I'm using Wordpress because it's simple and very well setup for SEO. I'm sure there's a way to do it. There's been some great ideas in this thread so far so thanks to everyone for that. Definitely getting the wheels turning.

Maybe I should suck it up and just buy one of everything I want to write about....HAHA.

 

Let's see. You're writing a book that will expose errors of TPGs, but you're asking their permission. Good chance they'll say no regardless of whether you could do it legally without their permission. Then, even if they say yes, there could be doubt about your objectivity because you produced the book with their blessing. I would thoroughly investigate whether you can do it without their permission, perhaps with some limitations on what you can image. Pictures of product errors and faults get published all the time without permission of the manufacturers; just page through a few issues of Consumers Reports. You should consult a copyright lawyer if you are going to self-publish; otherwise, your publisher should be able to advise on and handle the legalities.

Have you talked to potential publishers about the book concept? If you are planning on self-publishing, there are a number of legal, administrative and financial steps to be taken. I haven't done it myself, but watched a friend do it.

Cal

 

The book is not about errors made by TPGs. I am simply explaining that one slab I have is mislabeled on one of my error coins.

I am simply asking them if i am allowed to feature the entire slab of the 80 high grade errors in my collection.

 

I wish this were true, but I am not finding it to be so especially when dealing with defunct auction houses where there is no contact. The items I am dealing with are so rare that in most cases there is a single siting of the coin and the owner has been masked by the sale. Often you are dealing with copies of copies of copies and the original source is long lost.

But I solved my image problem and I only have to work with data now. So I am citing the data source and certainly claiming no ownership, only that the item was documented. That narrows my universe of contacts to I think six or seven and since I am only documented the existence of the coin and not ownership I think approval will be relatively easy.

 

This sounds right to me, but I don't think it allows you to use the auction image. That is still property of the photographer. Again, with attribution/permissions it would be fine. Some auction sites may even have something in thier terms that addresses this.

 

If you read the info on the link to the Stanford explanation of copyright then I draw this conclusion. In my mind saying I saw a coin in the Heritage Auction Catalog on 1/1/81 is a statement of fact that is observable by anyone. Lifting the Heritage description verbatim without attribution would definitely be a no-no.
But even if you did quote from the catalog, so long as you list it in quotes and attribute it to them it seems to me that it is no different than quoting from a scientific journal.

 

But photos provided by Heritage belong to Heritage, correct? I am guessing yes

 

I was told by someone in-the-know those are clerical errors and not crafted by the evaluators themselves.

 

According to the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, every photo from the moment they're taken is copyrighted, so it's a fair assumption.

 

I believe that to be true

 

I think you are also right, but what does that say about Facebook, the NSA, Instagram, etc. It may very well be that many copyright laws will need to be reviewed because the practicality of enforcing them in the modern world just isn't there. It should be there, but when something becomes unenforceable it is almost nullified by default.

Seems like I read recently that we now take 1 billion photos per week and I assume some major portion of those wind up online. In that environment the copyright laws become a trap and not a protection. There are many laws that were written pre internet that will change, just not yet.

Think about digital music. Artists and publishers have pretty much given up on patrolling use of the music and only go after copyright infringement among themselves. When every song written is available everywhere, to everybody, for free, what laws can apply to their use? Is there a reasonable expectation of ownership of a picture published to the internet of an inanimate object? A person yes, but a thing maybe not going forward.

Those of us who are pretty deep into photoshop can take a picture of any coin and make it a different picture quickly. (Let's assume clean it up for legibility only) When does it change enough to become unrecognizable as the original and the property of the modifier?

A lot of things in the copyright world will need to change going forward in my opinion, but just my opinion.

 

This disturbs me. I hired an outfit to build a quality website for my business. When our discussion turned to images, he was adamant that the stock images he pulled off the web were usable... Granted we are talking images of commercial construction materials and not at all anything remotely proprietary. I feel remiss now that I took the fellow at his word. He was quite adamant with me that we could pull any web image and use it in our site.

 

And there lies the issue I think. Once the picture of an inanimate object is published to the web does the publisher have a right to privacy/ownership or do they have to be wise enough to understand that once published those rights are lost? The decision and risk of publishing are well known. I don't step out in front of a moving car because I have no reasonable expectation that some miracle will keep me from being squished like a bug.

A real mess that some attorneys will make a fortune on.