Yep, the new one looks nice indeed. I don't know if the color is original, but that's always hard to judge from photos anyhow. It certainly looks like it's got great luster.
Your seller is in many cases using images that have the different dates superimposed over photos of the same coin. Whether the seller is changing the dates in the images, or happens to be capturing the images from another source where that has already been done doesn't matter. What does matter is that we spread the word that the coins in the listing are definitely not well-represented by the photos in the listings. Compare below the seller's images of two distinctly different dates . . . 1916 in eBay Item __ 1928 in eBay Item __
That looks more like it! And I note that the seller of your second purchase says you’ll get the exact item pictured. No more stock photos! Yay.
That is truly bizarre. That “NEA” seller of the first coin in the OP is definitely one to avoid. I dunno if he’s just lazy, or crooked, or both, but either way, I’d avoid him like the plague from now on!
Wow I had not noticed that. That is weird. I did see later that he's got a bunch of other "Gem BU" coins listed similar to the 1909 VDB. Definitely a seller to avoid!
Yes, I'm done with stock photos! Except maybe for bullion purchases. Some time ago I bought a few circulated gold sovereigns from APMEX, stock photo, and I got a Victoria, an Edward VII, and a George V. I don't really consider them part of my coin collection since I bought them just for the bullion, but I did take photos of the Victoria.
I am not even sure this is a genuine coin. The VDB looks wrong. Even if it is details, you only buy a coin like this in a holder to guarantee that it is genuine.
The coin in the OP did indeed look fake, though that might have merely been because it was whizzed to death. Dunno.
I’ve done that. Bullion is bullion. But hey, why not include them in the collection? They can do double duty that way.