My First Experience With PCGS Imaging Has Left Me More Concerned Than Impressed

[TomB]

I'm sure we have all seen those wonderous images that PCGS is producing with their image system. The coins look spectacular, and that is no doubt due to the quality of the coins being submitted for imaging as well as the talent and equipment of the photographer. Of course, being able to take images without the plastic in the way helps very much. However, I have always been uncertain as to the accuracy of these images, after all, I had never held in-hand one of these imaged coins. That is, until now.

 

Below is a PCGS image of an 1832 dime graded AU55. I have no issues with the grade, but I will tell you that the PCGS image and the coin look incredibly different. The coin was sent in for imaging before I owned it. Upon seeing the image of the coin, when it was offered to me, I immediately assumed that the coin was flooded with light and that it would appear darker in-hand. I asked the seller about this and he confirmed that the coin was quite a bit darker than the image suggested. If the coin were accurately imaged, and it looked as the imaged suggested, I would not have bought the coin because I doubt that the surfaces would have been original.

I eagerly awaited the arrival of this piece and when it came I was both stunned and delighted. The coin looks essentially nothing like the image! The piece in-hand is a deep, dark blackberry that has lighter violet and dark pink highlights when tilted about thirty degrees. The coin straight on looks nearly black and is dark, not light at all as the images portray it. The areas that appear a pink in the PCGS image are the areas that are a deep pink or lighter violet in-hand while the balance of the coin, appearing light blue in the PCGS image is a dark navy or blackberry.

 

This brings up the question: does PCGS ask the coin owner how the image should look? If so, is it incumbent on PCGS to keep the image to a certain level of reality? I have no in-hand image of this coin to share, but it is wildly different than the one PCGS portrays.

[Jazzy]

There's no keeping an image to a certain level of reality.

 

Photographing coins is like photographing fish in an aquarium.

[gmarguli]

I've only seen a few coins in person and imaged by PCGS. The few that I have seen, I have not been impressed with the pictures. I felt they did their best to hide all the negatives and bring out the positives. While this would be a big plus for selling the coin, the "True View" name is a lie. "Best View" would be a more accurate description of the service. The pictures are great, but not accurate.

 

I should add that I saw the coins before the image, so I had no preconceived expectations. And, one of the coins is owned by a forum member who seems to think the picture matches the coin well. I strongly disagree.

[EZ_E]

Thanks for the heads up, Tom! I've wondered about that.

[MikeInFL]

Tom,

 

Nice coin. My take is as yours -- the PCGS photos make the coin look unnatural. I've heard second hand that you can send directions to the photographer -- like "capture the luster" or "make the colors accurate", etc. I'd call PCGS customer service and inquire.

 

Take care...Mike

[IGWT]

So far, 43 out of 77 respondents (56%) to this poll feel that TrueView does not provide accurate, lifelike images of coins.

 

We have a divergence of opinions on this issue, and I respect the opinions of people who have expressed opposing views on the subject. This situation makes me think that PCGS can produce the kind of image that a collector wants. If the collector wants a "realistic" image, PCGS can likely do that. If the collector wants a "pretty" image, well, PCGS can do that, too. It's probably about pleasing the customer.

[stman]

Hi Tom, While I think some of the other series look OK with the PCGS images.....as far as the Bust series they just look like cartoon characters too me.

 

I can understand the "3 degree" tilt (to show the color better), but these images are just unrealistic IMO. They don't show the surfaces, all/most of the images make the coin look so smooth and such. But some folks like them. I actually think many folks just want to see "Pretty." whether it accurately depicts the coin in person or not.

 

I think I know what a Bust coin looks like. But, I used to think I knew what toned Morgans looked like as well. When a well known ebay seller would tweak the heck out of his images IMO and I called him on it...... many posters flamed me saying I didn't know what toned Morgans looked like in person. Although I collected them at the time. Heh

 

So although these folks that flamed me, many were indeed consignors

I now know I'm not supposed to question images on these boards. At least not of board members. And although I thought I knew what coins looked like in person that I collect, study etc. I have been enlightened that all this time I spend on such coins has been for nothing. Due to the fact I just don't know what a coin looks like in person. Hahaha

[JamminJ]

TrueView images look quite a bit like those in Goldberg auctions. I know the Goldberg images are tweaked so I'm not surprized to hear TrueView images are too.

[jom]

From what I can tell the PCGS photos DO look similar to both Goldbergs AND Superior (argh!) but slightly better... However, "better" and "accurate" are two different things....

 

jom

[chinook]

When I had my toned proof IHCs imaged, Phil emailed me to ask whether I wanted light or dark fields. I believe this is more a specific towards mirrored proofs.

 

Greg's comment about "best view" does have some merit. We all know that any coin can look different when rotated under light. What is best and what is true can oftentimes be debated. With toned IHC proofs, I think they look best and most accurate when light is reflected off the mirrors and through the toning.

 

I think another example, that Tom could relate to is his 1912 matte proof. I imagine that when view straight on the coin is mostly brown, however when rotated under light the coin just explodes in color. Which view is best or true?

[TomB]

The 1912 that chinook mentions is a perfect example of how difficult it is to take a single image and suggest that it is truly representative of all views of a coin. However, in the present case, the 1832 dime never looks like the image, so there is a subtle yet substantive difference in these cases.

[Tradedollarnut]

Tom: might I inquire what your dime looks like OUT OF THE HOLDER? The reason I ask is because every coin I've seen raw and then holdered has always looked better raw. It's the ability to put light on the coin that makes the difference.

 

Sometimes we get so used to the plastic being there that we forget the coins look nicer au naturale

[TomB]

That's a fair enough question, TDN, and I can tell you that I bought the coin in the holder and have not cracked it out yet, nor do I believe I will crack it out. The size of these small-sized CB dimes is still larger than today's dimes. If you take that fact in concert with the fact that I like to keep my raw coins in Kointains, which are not made to the specifications of this series, you will understand that I do not intend on cracking this coin out.

 

However, I have sent in my share of coins to be slabbed over the years, mostly to PCGS, and I am familiar with how the optical qualities of plastic can distort the view of MS, PF and circulated pieces. I can honestly write that there is little chance that this coin looks so much closer to the image in the raw state that the PCGS image might be constured as an accurate representation.

 

Please note that I am neither slamming the coin nor the seller. The coin is beautiful and the seller was quite honest. In my opinion, the image of the coin looks like something that I could approximate using the gamma function in Corel Photo-Paint. Again, I am not claiming that that is how this is done, I'm just writing that the image and coin appear so different that I can't reconcile this due simply to the plastic.

[Tradedollarnut]

When I had my coins imaged, I requested the colors match reality. I also could have requested that he show the luster over the color. I was given the chance to comment on every image before he finalized them and I believe I asked for only 3 or 4 out of 80+ to be changed. On one, I wanted the luster to show more, on another I wanted it darkened to better represent the coin in hand and the others I wanted the color tweaked. All in all, I was very pleased with the results. I feel he nailed 75% or more of the collection and did as good a job as possible on the rest. There's only a few coins that I think the image 'enhances' the look and since I've never seen the coin out of the holder and in the light, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the expert.

 

I certainly can understand the criticism that some coins only look like the images under a few degrees, but aren't those the few degrees that we look at the coins when they are in hand? I know when I view coins from my collection I'm always tilting them trying to get the light just right so I can enjoy them the most. Perhaps with those coins, two images should be requested. After all, if one so desires, I'm certain that Phil can shoot a coin with minimal light to bring out the blackness and dreariness of the piece...

[James_OldeTowne]

I won't comment to the PCGS images, but I'd like to note that lately, Heritage has been doing something that makes some of their images seem quite misleading. Some of the coins I've bought have been substantially darker than what the images relate.

 

It sounds like this is similar to what some of you are reporting regarding the PCGS imaging.

 

James

[TomB]

I guess this could simply have been a request to bring out the color, and since it is the only PCGS imaged coin that I have held in-hand, albeit in the slab, it is the only information point I had to go by.

[Tradedollarnut]

Here are two different shots of the same coin, one by PCGS out of the holder and the other by Legend in the holder:

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't know - it seems like the second image is more likely to be more realistic! The first (PCGS) image looks like one of those situations where the light source is reflected directly off the coin and into the camera lens. This would be the equivalent of angling a coin such that your lamp bulb is blindingly shining into your eyes!

 

I quickly found from experience that angling a coin that way (the first way) does make a coin look spectacular, but nobody would typically look at their coins at an angle that reflects the light source in a blinding manner.

 

Just some random thoughts....

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

Remember that my goal was to have the colors accurately portrayed ... in that case, the first is more correct than the second.

 

There is no picture that does it all - shows the coin realistically for color and luster from all angles.

[TomB]

Well, here's my best image of the 1832 dime. Please note that it isn't cropped the way I like to crop these images because I installed Norton 2006 on my computer earlier this week and it is apparently incompatible with Corel Photo-Paint 8, which is a very old program, and I have lost some functionality in the Corel program such as being able to crop in a circle.

 

These images were taken with enough light directly on the coin that other coin images taken at the same time were overlit, or burned, so I am really at the maximum light value that this image can take. The only time that this coin has the colors shown on the PCGS image visible is as you had predicted earlier, at a strong angle. However, they are never anywhere near as bright or pure as shown on the PCGS image.

 

By the way, your Seated dollar is beautiful, but it is a PF64CAM and these can be a different animal to image than a non-PL AU55.

[James_OldeTowne]

Ah! With that caveat then, I see your point. I guess color is usualy visible at only a very narrow range of angles, luster at a wider range.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

Well, here's my best image of the 1832 dime. Please note that it isn't cropped the way I like to crop these images because I installed Norton 2006 on my computer earlier this week and it is apparently incompatible with Corel Photo-Paint 8, which is a very old program, and I have lost some functionality in the Corel program such as being able to crop in a circle.

 

These images were taken with enough light directly on the coin that other coin images taken at the same time were overlit, or burned, so I am really at the maximum light value that this image can take. The only time that this coin has the colors shown on the PCGS image visible is as you had predicted earlier, at a strong angle. However, they are never anywhere near as bright or pure as shown on the PCGS image.

 

By the way, your Seated dollar is beautiful, but it is a PF64CAM and these can be a different animal to image than a non-PL AU55.

 

Just putting them both together in order to compare:

 

[BigBen-migration]

Good grief they look like two different coins! I'm glad I read this post because it looks very easy to be mislead about what the coin really looks like. PCGS is so full of unethical garbage already and this is just one more feather in their broken hat:)

 

Cheers

[EZ_E]

 

 

Lighting makes all the difference in the world. Afterall, that is how our eye operates. Our eyes only perceive 1/70th of the electomagnetic spectrum. Colors are just an illusion, afterall, based upon the perception of varying wave lengths within a narrow band of energy waves. So, it makes sense that our perception can be altered by lighting variables.

 

Point is that the above examples may merely reflect the photography skills of the individual. It does not necessarily imply deceit.

 

Here are some before and after photos of some of my coins. The poor quality images were from my first attempt at coin photography with bad lighting. The second photos are after a little trial and error with proper lighting. The second photos more closely represents the actual look of the coins in proper lighting:

 

Link to an old post of mine contrasting before and after pictures of the same coin based upon poor and decent lighting conditions

[RGT]

As long as we're dragging up old threads, here's one I started a year ago.

 

Same coin, different lighting.

 

The colors on this half dime remind me of the colors on my dime. It was suggested that my coin had been bleached. It's not my coin any more because I sold it on eBay last week and practically gave it away. I guess nobody liked the color on my dime.