I'm sure most members familiar with Heritage have noticed they've changed the way they image their coins. Here's the quote from HA: So do you think the new images are an improvement, or have they gotten worse. (Please vote in the poll above). I'll be interested to hear everyone's opinion, I'll post mine a little later.
I am on their site every day exploring and searching and to be honest until you posted the above, I was not aware the pictures had changed. Apparently if there had been an significant improvement I should had noticed the change but did not.
The photos appear to show better detail but they seem very flat and lacking in luster. The color shows but without the luster the photos take on a very unrealistic appearance IMO. Not to mention that I had their photos down cold. I could view a Heritage photo and predict what the coin would look like in hand 9 out of 10 times. I wonder how many thousands of dollars I will have to spend to reacquire that proficiency.
Lehigh hits it about right. They may be more realistic as photos but the life seems to have been drained out of them. I like Heritage but their photos do them no favors. I do like their catalogs but I'm probably in danger of dropping off their list as I have not bought much out of auction in quite some time.
I feel exactly the same way. Imo while there may be a slight increase in the detail of the pictures, the nearly complete loss of luster just isn't worth it. Here's the first two random examples I took, both are 1901-O Morgans in 66. The first coin is an example of the new pics: 1901-O $1 MS66 PCGS. The second coin is an example of the pics right before the change: 1901-O $1 MS66 NGC. To me it's just not even close, the old pics are far superior to the new pics. Take a look at the pics from back in 2005: 1901-O S$1 MS66 PCGS. Imo the new pics are pretty close to that quality. Now not to knock Heritage, it's a great company, and I think it's great they're trying to improve their images, but I think they made a big mistake on this one.
I just got my first heritage purchase in the mail, and i must say the coin does not look as good in hand as it did in the photo. It was a PL Morgan, and it just is not as frosty in hand as it was in the photos. I am not totally disappointed as the coin is really nice, just not as nice as i expected.
Looking at it from an overall perspective I think the pics have gotten consistently better over the years. My opinion of the recent change is no different. To me details are what you need to see. If you are going to interpret something then it is much easier to interpret luster than it is to interpret details. That is because if details are not shown then they just aren't shown and you have no idea of what is there. Details are what makes you or breaks you when it comes to telling if a coin is graded accurately or not. That's because if the luster is all there or not, if the details are missing or you just can't see them then you have no idea of how many contact marks a coin has or doesn't have or their severity. You don't know if key strike details are missing or not. You can't see hairlines, you can't see light scratches, you can't see light wear - in short you can't see a lot of stuff. So show me the details, and I'll interpret the luster.
I agree with what has been said. Heritage photos used to be very bright, somewhat blurry, and it was really hard to interpret what things like luster and toning would look like in hand, and details were hard to see. Now, the details of the coin show up better, and I believe the overall shot, including details, luster, toning, etc, are presented better in the pictures. There is just less anticipation by the buyer and less things the buyer needs to think about how the coin looks, just looking at the picture. I'd feel more confident buying from Heritage now, then I would've one year ago. So I voted they have gotten better.
I've always like the Heratage site and like the large photos available. Now have you seen Stack's new site they are the BEST.
Doug, Heritage already had the best detail of anyone in the industry due to the sheer size of their photos. I never considered that an issue. Quite honestly, the ability to see too much detail is actually detrimental in the grading process because what you cant see at 10X should be ignored anyway. My concern is that the photo be an accurate representation of how the coin looks in hand. Anyone who has taken thousands of coin photos knows exactly how difficult that task is. IMO, Heritage's change has made their photos less realistic, not more realistic. With regards to hairlines on proof coins, I don't know anyone who can accurately portray them in a photograph and that includes the professional photographers like Mark Goodman etc. Anyone who buys expensive proofs based solely on photos is gambling with their money.
I very much enjoy Heritage's new pictures. Some of their pictures however, especially for lower value coins, are still not so great. Lehigh is exactly correct - they are showing color much better, but at the expense of luster. Getting a good balance is bloody difficult, even for the top-of-the-line photographers. In other news, Teletrade's images have been getting increasingly better as well. They used to have some of the worst pictures, but their recent images have been good to the point where I'm not sure who's are better for my recent prooflike Mexican Peso, theirs or mine.
I voted worse, but maybe it is just the coins I am looking at. It just seems to me some of the large cents have the color looking off - or at least what I would expect for the grade on some of the coins. I do like the details on the coins.
...i imagine they are using incandescent lighting, for now. just wait until the govment outlaws those bulbs.
Until the recent change, I thought that most Heritage photos of untoned coins were superior to my own. Now I would consider my photos better. Here are a few examples of some recent Jefferson Nickel purchases. Heritage Lehigh96 Heritage Lehigh96 Heritage Lehigh96 Heritage has the ability to take phenomenal photos as evidenced by the featured coins that have oversized cropped photos in addition to the slab photos. I don't know why every coin in their signature sale doesn't have both sets of photos. Their color is off, the brightness is wrong, the light seems to be diffused somehow, and the overall appearance is not right. The goal of any numismatic photographer should be to accurately portray the coin as it appears in hand. IMO, Heritage's ability to do that has declined with their recent change in photographic procedures.
Yes Paul I agree your pictures are better. But I wonder (thinking about the business side of things) if these coins warrant the extra attention that the big items garner? It makes me think of the Penny Ladies thread on pictures by dealers. As a collector I always want to see the coins as best as possible, but understand why some do not take the time. I also understand that better pictures would bring additional bids and I could see why seller's might complain - but is it truly worth the additional cost? I don't know.
I agree that there is a cost associated with the larger images, but I am not suggesting that Heritage photograph every coin in every auction that way. I simply think that all of the coins in the signature sales should be consistent in the way they are photographed. Why should one $500 have the oversized photos while another does not. This is the one area that the other major auctions actually do better than Heritage. Every Bowers & Merena & Goldberg auction I have seen displays every coin the same way. We must remember, Heritage not only would benefit from higher bids but the consignor needs to be satisfied in order to cultivate repeat business.
...like i said, this will change thru regulation. just one of many 'changes' to come. not all of them welcome.
