Divo Caro: Seller photo vs in-the-hand reality

Remember this Divo Caro that i was contemplating a while back:



It had it on my watch list for ages - the price was on the very high end of what you'd expect to pay for a Divo Caro, and the seller would not budge. I waited for the British pound to depreciate somewhat and finally purchased it. With the GBP depreciation I guess I got a 10% discount in the end.

Here's the reality

If I tilt it towards the light, i guess i can make it shinier:




Look, it's not a bad coin at all, but considerably darker than I expected. I was expecting something very silvery. I mentioned previously, realistic coin photography is difficult for *some* coins, but come on, I took these pics with an *iPhone* and they're more realistic than the seller's photo.

Do I like the coin? Definitely! Would i have paid the same price if the photos were more realistic? Probably not. Hmmm...

Oh well <vent over>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Regardless, that is a nice Divo Caro. Congratulations.

 

True. It's about as good as Divo Caros get. I can't complain too much. Just a little

 

So it's toned, and the seller's pictures were bright. If you take new pictures with the coin tilted a bit, with light reflecting from the coin, it will probably look like the seller's images-- which do a better job of showing the coin's details, and isn't that the goal of a seller's pictures?

The coin's details seem accurately depicted in the seller's pictures. All other aspects are variable depending on the photographer's settings and the viewer's monitor.

It's an excellent coin regardless of how it is photographed.

 

Congrats on adding those two new coins, Smeagle!!



just jokes (I like both photos) ... I'm actually a bigger fan of your recent non-silver photos (it has nice colour)

Yah, I've always loved Devo

 

The fact of the matter is the seller was being deceitful, unless he specifically disclosed that the coin was WAY darker than the photo would lead one to believe. If it was on eBay or Vcoins I'd file a complaint.

 

I don't sell my coins. That being said, if I did I would picture the coin in it's best possible image. I personally do not consider that as deceitful, but rather, good marketing. Although I could agree that the color of the patina should be disclosed.

 

I like that coin, and the toning isn't a bad surprise, even though, as others, should I be the buyer, I would have prefered being informed prior to purchasing it

Q

 

I like it although I'm no longer the big silvery fan I once was...meaning toning is a bit more important than in days past. I agree with TIF and believe the photo intent was to clearly show the remaining details...but a mention of the 'actual' coloring should have been made unambiguous as 'Q' states.

I purchase from FORVM and their photos often give little indication of the actual silvery denarius depicted and I'm always a bit surprised that it looks much more what you would expect in hand.

 

Coin photos are tough. I agree, though, that the seller somewhat misrepresented that coin.

I bought my avatar a few weeks ago. In hand, where there looks like strike weakness its actually silver luster impairing the photograph. This seller is kind of known for this, so I am usually happily surprised by bright silver coins in hand versus the photos, (something I kind of look for in this seller's auction TBH).

 

Well, I didn't realize it was Joe so I spoke too soon saying the seller was being deceitful. He wouldn't deliberately deceive customers. But I still think he did a poor job with this photo.

 

The seller wasn't Joe of Forum. I have considered the opinions of the group and I'm not too upset over this one. It's just that the price was high for Carus (though not to Ilya Zlobin proportions) so my expectations were also very high.

 

We had a similar thread like this about a year ago.

I'm not sure how you can get your coin to look that light. You should attempt and post your photos.

To what extent is photo manipulation ok?
Would anyone be disappointed after receiving the OP coin and the below image being used to represent it?

 

You beat me to posting the thread link.

The coin discussed in that thread was eventually traded away. The coin was good and IMO it fit well in my collection. It was the darn seller's photo that always bugged me. Every time that I viewed the coin I saw that seller's (marginally deceptive) photo in my mind's eye. Like Greg, I spent a percentage more because I assumed it would look like the photo.

This is how it looked in hand:

It's a good coin but it's not mine anymore. (I want Stevex6's dolphin coin ).

 

I know I take my life in my hands to write this, but is there any way the OP could clea....uh... conserve this coin to brighten it. Lemon juice comes to mind. Am I talking sacrilege?

 

I'm not sure if that would help or not. I think it is a very nice looking coin as-is.

 

I recently had a similar experience to OP with a Postumus AR Antoninianus

Seller's image:



Actual coin:



Interestingly enough, I like the coin I received better than the pictures from seller. It looks as a heavily debased mid-3rd century Roman silver coin should look, with even little bronze deposits on the surface that have leached out from underneath, and an interesting toning that could only occur from heavily debased silver that is starting to approach billon territory. In other words, it looks more authentic, while seller's picture just looked weird/heavily edited and probably put off many people from buying it. I know it certainly put me off for a while, so I waited until it was discounted before taking a risk on it.

 

The coin in hand is IMO way way better than the sellers image....
Id be very happy if I received that coin, in fact I would be thankful the sellers pic was so shiny as if it had been a truer representation I imagine someone would have beaten you to it!!

 

A skill worth developing is reading photographs of coins. I see nothing deceptive in the images shown but just photos that show what a coin looks like in different light qualities and directions. This list regularly acts like a coin photo is required to match what one member will see when they look at the coin wherever it is that they look at coins. The problem is not all of us have the same lights and will not see the same thing with the same coin. Even wiggling a coin changes the waylight reflects from metal surfaces. Certainly you might call it deceptive to take a photo of a coin that shows it in its best light. I might say that big dealers that use black and white images of coins are being deceptive by hiding the color of the coin. Sallent's Postumus pair is a good example of the difference between light reflecting back into the camera and light grazing the surface highlighting texture. Both look like the coin. I believe it is up to each of us to learn the difference if we consider that difference important. I have shiny silver coins and matte black coins in my collection. One is not necessarily 'better' than the other. Dark coins do require a brighter light to enjoy than do light ones. I carry a small but bright light when I go to coin shows. It helps.

 

I think the coin in hand photos are MUCH more appealing than the originals FWIW.