What do you think of new Heritage piucture?

[toyonakataro]

For me, it was very tough to guess the actual color from the scan taken by Heritage, but now it's impossible to guess from their new pictures.

Do you also feel the same way? Or do you have a clue to guess the actual color from their new images?

[keithdagen]

I think that they suck, and have already mentioned that to one of my contacts down there. Every pic looks blurry, or at best, washed out.

[gmarguli]

I used to "kind of" like their photos. They sucked, but if you could read them you could get great coins cheap. Every once in a while a super toned coin would be in their Internet Only auctions (or whatever they call them) and you could pick it up cheap.

 

Their last two major auctions I was shocked when I saw some coins from them. They looked nothing like the photos. I'd have been really pissed had I purchased them based on the photos.

 

I like Heritage, but I do wish their pictures were more accurate as well as their descriptions. I feel that their descriptions can leave vital info out.

[mark]

I concur with the assessment of the Heritage pictures. In their defense, I recently mentioned to a Heritage salesman a similar thread on the "other" board knocking Heritage's pictures. He argued that Heritage needs to image thousands of coins a month and it's this huge quantity that accounts for the generally low quality of their scans. After listening to him describe the quantity of coins as well as the problems Heritage has hiring and keeping people whose job is to scan coins all day, every day, I have a lot more sympathy for Heritage. So, I think their pictures aren't great but there are some understandable reasons why they aren't great.

 

Mark

[mark]

Of course, I post a tepid defense of Heritage's pictures, and then come across this charmer: Picture I've seen better pictures on ebay!

 

Mark

[jtryka]

For Saints, the pictures don't look all that different than they used to.

[TomB]

I'm hesitant to bid aggressively on a lot with the new pictures as the luster on the coins looks so overpowering that I know they are using too much light. Similar to some of the ebay sellers who do this on purpose and then charge a re-stocking fee. Since you are not typically allowed to return an auction lot, I will not experiment with what they look like until I have seen some lots in person.

 

As for Heritage moaning and groaning about how many images they have to make, well, it's their job! If they can't do it, get out of the market!

[keithdagen]

I'm hesitant to bid aggressively on a lot with the new pictures as the luster on the coins looks so overpowering that I know they are using too much light. Similar to some of the ebay sellers who do this on purpose and then charge a re-stocking fee. Since you are not typically allowed to return an auction lot, I will not experiment with what they look like until I have seen some lots in person.

 

As for Heritage moaning and groaning about how many images they have to make, well, it's their job! If they can't do it, get out of the market!

 

I do sympathize with the guys when it comes to sheer volume, especially when they have to scan 2,500 coins on short notice for the auctions. But at least the flatbed scans of the coins lookd pretty good most of the time, except for wild toners and the occasional funky coin. The new method ends up destroying the appearance of 99% of the pieces.

 

Last week, I looked at the Internet auction for a nice No Motto $5 Liberty in AU-58 or a Type 2 $20 Liberty in AU-58, and all of the pics made the coins appear dirty or out of focus. Although there were dozens of coins that met my grade criteria in the auction, which in itself can be unusual, I refused to bid on any because of the pics.

[toyonakataro]

As Greg pointed out, we could get a pretty coin whitch isn't easy to guess from the image if not you see the pic carefully.

Because I'm not as smart as Greg, I often got fooled by their image( I saw beauty in their ugly image and bid, whitch turn out to be a REALLY ugly coin in person) but also got a pretty coin whitch was more than expected and I liked to gamble bidding on toned cheap coins.

But now I can't imagine anything from the pic....I used to ask a generous dealer( who currently spend most of his time posting on PCGS board ) to look at the realatively expensive lots whitch I choose according to the images from Heritage, but from now on, because I can't choose, I'll have to ask him to look every lots from their sale

[coinman1794]

For me, it was very tough to guess the actual color from the scan taken by Heritage, but now it's impossible to guess from their new pictures.

Do you also feel the same way? Or do you have a clue to guess the actual color from their new images?

 

Early last week or late the week before, their photos went to H3LL !! They were semi-decent before, to the point that if you knew how to read the pics, you could get nice coins. Now they are absolutely terrible. It is impossible to tell what the coins look like. It's like buying blind . They are totally washed out. However, I have seen a few nice pics come up in the last 2 days. Maybe they are going back to the old ones? If they aren't I'm going to let them know about it and hopefully they will change them. Otherwise they will have to put up with a lot of returns from me !

[MikeKing]

as well as the problems Heritage has hiring and keeping people whose job is to scan coins all day, every day

 

 

My feeling is: this is Heritage's thing: auctioning coins. The least they can do is pay someone what it takes to do it right. The photographer should be one of their most valuable assets.

[jtryka]

Last week, I looked at the Internet auction for a nice No Motto $5 Liberty in AU-58 or a Type 2 $20 Liberty in AU-58, and all of the pics made the coins appear dirty or out of focus. Although there were dozens of coins that met my grade criteria in the auction, which in itself can be unusual, I refused to bid on any because of the pics.

 

Keith, their gold photos have sucked for quite some time now, at least the last 2 years. All the coins looked dirty, and it was rare to see a photo that caught some luster. But like someone else said, you get used to how they differ from reality, and then you could translate the crappy pictures into what you think the coin would look like and bid accordingly. I have two awesome T2 $20 libs that looked dirty and dull, one in 58 and the other in 60, got them for a song.

[mark]

jtryka:

 

The fact you got these coins for a song probably did not leave the sellers quite as happy as it left you! And, for the sellers, the truly frustrating fact must be that if the pictures had been better, likely the prices would have been high.

 

Mark

[jtryka]

No disagreement there Mark, which is why it's probably not wise to sell common date stuff through Heritage. Perhaps rare, high value coins do better since it is more worthwhile for folks to actually view the lots, so the photo factor comes into play less.

[coinman1794]

"So, I think their pictures aren't great but there are some understandable reasons why they aren't great."

 

I sympathize with them too, but only a little bit. They sell coins on line and through the mail! That's what they do! They need to maintain a standard of imaging the coins properly. With their large 10% (minimum $10 per lot) restocking fee on auctions, I think they have an obligation to make at least decent pictures. I must mention that their images were fine until just last week. Why can't they at least keep that quality level going?

 

These new pictures make it absolutely impossible to judge anything about the coin! If Heritage is going to give us pictures that are useless and that do not serve their intended purpose, why not just stop giving pictures altogether? Heck, you can't even identify the coin according to the description (when there is a description, but that's another story)!

 

Also, isn't it in their best interest to keep quality scans so the coins can sell for more? I know, for a fact, that coins are not bringing as much money with this new method! I bought a very nice coin in the last Exclusively Internet Auction for less than $60 that would have sold for $85 to $100 if the old style scans were used! There is low activity on these "ugly scan" lots! People think the coins really are that ugly, and there is no way for anyone to tell whether they are or not !

 

[ms66quarters]

just had a thought,if anyone is sending coins into any auction house,why not send your OWN pictures of your coin or coins to them for use on the auction page.

 

Sound's like a win-win to me.

 

 

Rob

[Oldtrader3]

Recently, I have not purchased much from Heritage mainly becuase I was not overwhelmed by the quality of that which I did buy. I do not know if their recent in-stock inventory reduction (crash is more like it) and difficulties finding material for auctions has caused cash flow problems with covering SG&A, Operating Overhead, or low debt-coverage ratios et cetera. They could be bending the rules a little to generate more revenues.

 

If that is what they are doing, it is a Desperation Revenue Death Spiral move though, because they will tarnish their rep. even further, thereby further eroding margins and customer loyalty.

[shylock]

I've been griping about this for years on the P forum but have given up, online image quality just isn't one of their priorities yet. I understand their volume, but at least the major auction lots could be vastly improved. And then take it from there.

 

On the flip side, I just bought 2 BN coins from Pinnacle I never would have looked at twice if they weren't well photographed. I realize Heritage's online inventory isn't as big a factor to them as a dealer's, but their Signature auction pics are a concern to potential consignors more & more these days.

 

I just received the one coin I won from their LB Sale, an 1865/1865 variety purchased to image and resell. They described it very accurately, calling it frosty mint red, but I was expecting a duller coin based on their pics. The 1st image is their slab scan, the 2nd the digital image they added, and the bottom is mine. You'll have to take my word for it that it looks pretty much like my image in person.

 

[TomB]

Very nice coin, shylock. What are the series of spots that traverse the obverse from the first S in "STATES" to the E in "AMERICA"? Do you think something was removed? Improper alloy mixing with clumps? Just toned that way?