How Much Do You Trust TrueView?

Really isn't. Statistics are about numbers. Go ask a stat professor what the error rate on a sample size of dozens is compared to thousands/10s of thousands for a statistical group is

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You don't seem to understand the issue here. I'm not trying to determine the exact percentage of coins that are juiced by Phil. All or nearly all of the dozens of coins I've viewed were juiced. The only way statistics would come into play with this sample is if I found no juiced coins at all. If that were the case, it could be argued that I did not take a statistically large enough sample size to ensure that TV coins are not juiced.

 

Not even close actually. You are accusing him of intentionally being deceptive with your term "juiced" which as mentioned earlier you do not understand the ramifications of that accusation or possibly think it will help your business by doing so. I really do not know what the case is and why you have made these accusations.

Accusations have to be statistically significant to matter. Outherwise they are opinion outliers. You can look at anything that is done in large quantities and find a handful with issues. The fact that you specifically say "The only way statistics would come into play with this sample is if I found no juiced coins at all. If that were the case, it could be argued that I did not take a statistically large enough sample size to ensure that TV coins are not juiced." shows your inherent bias trying to trash the service.

 

I am not trying to trash the service. Phil produces a superb product that I have a lot of respect for. The fact that the images are enhanced to improve their eye appeal is not at all concerning. It is normal in the coin business to image coins to show them at their best, and that's what Phil does.

 

I've thought about placing my actual store link in my signature but my concern is that if I try to change it I'll be left with nothing. I noticed this site changed their policy on signatures some time ago (right after they started running ads) and mine was left alone because it was "grandfathered in".

 

I don't see why everyone has taken my comments on Phil's photos as a personal attack. WTH?? To be honest I didn't even know this guy existed until this thread. I mean I figured there was a human being doing those photos but I didn't know his name was Phil or that he had such an affectionate following.

Also, my comments are not criticisms. If anything they are complementary. I think his photos are so good that they make the coin look better than they really are. Again, the point I'm trying to make is that his photos are so good I wouldn't rely on them only when purchasing a coin online. That's all.

 

Exactly this^

What good is it to have photos of a coin that your eyes will never see when it's in hand?

I once joked on here that I was going to sell colorful toned coins, but in order to see the toning you had to also buy special tinted glasses from me. I got laughed off the thread but there was a serious underlying message in that.

 

Copy paste response from your first one. Anyway I am glad you aren't my partner since you just completely trashed that seller since you say it is not you.

 

Huh?

You obviously post without knowing what you are talking about. Do you even know what an affiliate site is? The one in my signature is owned by me but it doesn't have listings from just one seller. I have RSS feeds which eBay fills in with listings based on the parameters I set (such as Top-Rated-Sellers only, Auction or Buy-It-Now, etc.). There are 100+ sellers represented. I don't know which ones are represented at any given time since eBay populates the feeds automatically.

Also, how was I thrashing them? You are the one that thrashed them when you posted this thinking they were my listings and photos, lol...

By promoting their listings I help them, not thrash them. And yes, it's a good thing we are not partners cause your attitude is terrible. Apparently though you do have a partner in "Phil". You really got a thing for him I see...

 

I looked at your eBay store and didn't see a single stock image except for raw ASEs listed as bullion. It's totally acceptable IMO to list silver bullion coins with a stock image.

 

I have nothing against baseball21, but I've gotten to the point where I take everything he says in a topic related to pcgs with a grain of salt. Biggest fan boy ever or vested interest? I dunno, but the unmoving bias is overwhelming.

 

This is pretty much the definitive answer to every question posed in this thread. I have proven this to be true time and again - pretty much every coin I shoot - because I learned years ago what a camera can and can't do to a coin's appearance. Knowing how easily a lens can flatter a coin as it can denigrate it, I've spent as much thought on how I light for my own vision as for my camera.

Every image I post here has appeared exactly like I posted it to my own eyes. That's the only way I know I got it right.

The advantage Phil has is in the ability to shoot raw what we only get to see in a slab. Do not underestimate the cost of that thin layer of plastic in photographic terms; it's all but impossible to duplicate the total contrast level of the raw coin shot once encased unless done in postprocessing. And it is in that extra contrast where the appearance of "juicing" comes into play. The colors aren't artificially brighter, the whole image simply has greater dynamic range. Blacks are blacker, colors are more colorful. It's the same as the difference between FM radio broadcasting and a 256 kbps digital download.

And any one among you who feels like going to the same level of effort as I have can prove this to yourselves, with your own eyes.

 

I gotta disagree with you here Dave. Most all TV's I've compared are saturated beyond what they look like in reality. The amount is not huge, but it is a click or two beyond anything I feel comfortable with in my own shots. I'd bet it's just a symptom of shooting lots of coins, and having to apply a fixed workflow to be practical.

That said, I can't state unequivocally that if I break the coin out of the plastic it won't look like the TV. I have never done that with a TV'd coin, so I'm willing to give Phil the benefit of the doubt. I would anyway, since his photos are really good.

 

I think he's shooting jpg's instead of RAW for workload considerations, and skewing towards his "average" coin with in-camera processing, which would make more colorful coins difficult to duplicate in-hand. I've only two coins in-hand which can offer any sort of comparison, my 1910-S Lincoln and the 1957 shown here:

http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33305424

....and although I have to fiddle for quite a while with lighting (LED lighting won't touch it, so the Jansjos are useless), I can come close enough to his images with both to believe that freeing them from the slab would make up the difference. It's conceivable that his settings could lead to oversaturation of the most colorful of his subjects; I haven't seen enough of them to have an opinion.

I won't be cracking the 1910-S any time soon, but I might crack the 1957 as an experiment. Except, for the moment, I've no free time aside that dedicated to the project you've gotten me into.

I have spent 18 hours over the last two days just postprocessing images. Nothing else except for sanity breaks to look in here every few hours.

 

Some of mine were shot raw and some not. All are shot with LED lighting. Coins are not tilted, lighting is.

 

The key there is to send that reflection of light to the sensor, so that the pic isn't at an angle, not easy, but some make it look that way.

 

The really tough thing is to do that with the coin in the slab. Light reflecting off the coin surface and straight to the sensor also means it will reflect off the slab surface, creating glare. This is one area where Phil has a big advantage, since he's working with the raw coins. What Robec has been able to achieve is getting that "look" while the coin is in plastic. No small feat.