Are Great Collection’s IMAGES Adequate for both Buyer and Seller?

In a post by @Coll3ctor (5/25/21) there were comments from some members concerning their viewpoint of Great Collections’ (GC) photography, excerpted as follows: @Plubius2 “...although sometimes I can fault their photography.”; @KSorbo “Photos are brighter than HA. Not saying that’s good or bad, just an observation.”; @Tall Paul “GC could do a better job on their photographs…”; @wxcoin “I disagree with the comment about their photos; I think they are excellent when zoomed.”; @ksparro “I think they could improve their photos some...”

To help answer that, I have posted images of two coins, from Top to Bottom:

(1) eBay Seller’s Images

(2) PCGS TrueView

(3) GC’s Images

Following the photos is some background info from my dealings with GC and from my Coin Facts Reply Postings concerning GC.













BACKGROUND

A few months ago I had been perusing eBay and came across a Dealer that had listings of coins that purportedly come from original rolls (pics of the broken-open rolls were included in the listing, and some of the wrappers had the Year Date of the issue, and a Bank name that was identifiable to that era thru research on my part) that had been “broken out” and listed individually; these coins exhibited original toning to some degree, and ALL had significant original mint luster. The Dealer’s photos were sharp, zoom-able, and well-lighted, except that a mix of tungsten “fill” lighting and daylight lighting sources were used, in which the tungsten "fill" lighting cast areas of medium amber on parts of the coin (accentuating any existing toning). I decided that the photos were “good enough” for me to make a bid on several of them, and I wound up winning two: a 1914 and a 1937-D Buffalo Nickel. Both coins were very well struck and lustrous, with original toning.

These coins were sent raw to GC for transfer to PCGS, and then to CAC; they graded as I thought they would based upon the original eBay source photos and visual inspection after receipt.

Comparing the eBay vs. PCGS TrueView vs. GC Images disclosed that the eBay Seller’s Images—although sharp—hid some of the “hits” on both coins because of the use of tungsten “fill” lighting which overshadowed some areas with medium amber simulated toning, and rendered the coin’s surfaces especially reflective. The PCGS TrueView and GC Images—in my opinion—showed ALL of the hits on both coins and equal detail in the Enlarged Images. The PCGS TrueView Images—in my opinion—have the best overall combination of clarity and contrast, with a natural rendering of any toning present, but also slightly less luster than the coin actually shows in hand. The GC Images typically present as lighter—or even washed-out—compared to these specific eBay and PCGS Images. NOTE: for comparison, older Heritage Auctions (HA) and Stacks-Bowers (SB) Images also appeared lighter or washed-out, but have improved significantly in recent years. For coins that have significant toning—where GC includes “Toned” in the Listing, the toning does show up in their images, but not as intense in saturation as compared to the PCGS TrueView Images. If you ask GC, they may include an additional photo(s) of a toned coin, or a PL or DMPL, to help the Listing get more interest:

In 2015, I had a discussion with Ian Russell (President of GC) about a Lot of coins that I had just sent to him for auction, which included an 1883-CC MS66 DMPL with beautiful peripheral toning in an old ANACS Slab (small white), that their photos didn't adequately show the toning. I mentioned that PCGS Coin Facts photos were IMO the best, and seemed to always show the true color and saturation of any toning present, and why didn't GC's photos look similar; Ian mentioned PCGS and other major TPGs and Auction Houses have Proprietary Photo Setups that he doesn't have access to, so that when his firm was first launched in 2010, his staff took about 6 months to get a setup that would adequately show a coin's true nature (to include defects, hairlines, marks, scrapes, and wear) but that whatever toning was present may not show up as very saturated, and that is why GC photos may look lighter than the competition or even washed-out. Ian did agree to have closeups of both sides retaken so that the peripheral toning would show up better—it worked, the coin sold for $2,037.50 and had 32 Bids. NOTE: GC discontinued using supplied PCGS TrueView images about 5 years ago.

In a previous post (11/1/21) I had mentioned that I have had 25 Lots (217 Items) auctioned on GC, most of which were purchased raw from eBay and other internet sources. I have found in many cases that the photos in the these Listings did not show the true nature of the coin when finally received in hand (e.g. defects, cleaning, hairlines, marks, scrapes, and wear) because the photos may have been unsharp, taken on an angle, inadequately lighted, or lighted with a source that casts an unnatural hue to the coin’s surface, and therefore, quite a few of these were returned to the Seller.

My personal opinion from having sold many coins on GC is that they did well from the standpoint of the number of bids versus final sales price, and that the Images were adequate. I would rather have the GC photos that show ALL characteristics of the coin's surfaces—even if they appear washed-out—because I know that the coin will look "better in the hand", but perhaps those not familiar with GC might have a different opinion—WHAT IS YOUR OPINION?

For those of you who might be interested in the Auction and its Images, the Links can be found at the Coin Talk For Sale (WTS) Forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks for taking the time to detail the history and show some comparisons.

 

They sold 40 of 45 of my Morgan VAMs. I was quite pleased with the
pics they presented. This was back in April, 2020. I will definitely use
them again.

 

GC's images are sometimes insufficient for my purposes.
I concentrate on EAC varieties.
Thus I need large, well focused and (most importantly for me) correctly lighted images.
If a coin doesn't include a variety identification then I have to do that.
I don't mind doing that since it keeps me in practice.
BUT if the image isn't good then I have to skip bidding on a coin I might like to have.

The worst situation for me is coins in NGC slabs.
The white inserts often result in the images of copper coins coming out too dark (under-exposed) to see the smaller identifying features.
I have the same problem when I image my coins that are in NGC slabs so I have to go to extra lengths to get good images.

 

First off I'll say you're one of the lucky ones having received coins from that city in the canyon ebay dealer that actually meet the advertised condition. There have been several reports of forum members receiving coins that had images photo-shopped to hide issues.
Next I will say GC's images are barely adequate for my purchasing needs. I've only purchased Morgan Dollars from them and look for die markers to confirm the variety prior to bidding. This can be a challenge using their images.

 

So I'm not the only one to have difficulties with GC's images.
Looks like it's time to "rattle their cage".

 

Theyve gotten a lot better recently thankfully. Not always the greatest with color, but it looks like theyve finally stopped washing out most coins with the lighting

 

You're welcome @wxcoin.

 

@Dave Waterstraat you are spot on about that Dealer; I have returned coins to him, but not for photoshopping issues, rather for his "fill" lighting obscuring details that are in the prime focal areas which the TPG's rely on for not only Grading, but also for determining Designations (i.e. FS; FB/FT; FH; FBL); and PUPs for Varieties. Buying raw coins on eBay or any other venue is always somewhat of a "crap shoot"; a knowledge of what is 'Kosher" along with decent photos is just a starting point; getting the coin in hand is the proof-positive, and having a Return Policy that the venue enforces is another important aspect of the transaction.

Dealers and private individual Sellers have, at times, (and some continuously do ex: Great Southern Coins) used deceptive lighting or Descriptions, or offer doctored coins (i.e. cleaned and AT)--you just have to be knowledgeable and willing to take the risk, spend the money and time.

 

thanks for starting the thread, Tamaracian, and posting the comparison photos. I've never thought that GC used deceptive photo techniques, just that it was hard to envision what the coin would look like in hand. Over time, I have become more adept at this. If it's part of GC's strategy to show all the "warts and wrinkles" on a coin then that's fine with me. No one can accuse them of posting "glamour shots."
I too have noticed extra photos on strongly toned coins to more accurately depict the toning, which seems like a good step.

 

My concern about GC’s photos has always been areas of lost detail due to blown-out highlights. You can see a bit of this, though it’s very slight, in the 1937D obverse above: zoom in on the bright area leading south from the Y in LIBERTY, then compare with the TrueView which successfully shows all the texture there. In this case it’s not enough to bother me and indeed I think GC has mostly fixed the problem - it was much worse a few years ago. (I’m a fan of the company and never thought they were trying to be deceptive.)

 

For the most part, I have no problem with GCs photos...just blow them up!

 

I, TOO have returned 2 coins (out of 3) that i purchased from him, one was a so-called dmpl morgan and another was a liberty nickel, in both cases coins were lack-luster, and hits and nicks and scrapes did not show in his listing, avoid great southern at all costs...

 

I'll only bid on NGC or PCGS coins from them. I learned a long time ago that their descriptions of raw coins are mostly crap.

 

@john65999 were you referring to coins that you purchased form Canyon City Coins (CCC) (the Image that I posted was from CCC), or from Great Southern Coins (GSC)?

My reference to GSC concerned their rampant listings of doctored coins, particularly 1921 High Relief Peace Dollars that seem to be on a revolving door of sale, then return, then dip, then retone... ad infinitum. I have purchased many raw coins from them years ago, when they had different ownership and the CSR was easy to work with, and, at that time, returned only a few. Back then, pretty much the only issue I found was they tended to claim some coins were BU when in fact they were AU, or had been cleaned.

 

A long time ago I purchased a few items from CCC. I didn't leave a positive review. After that I could no longer bid on anything from them, which in hindsight is a good thing.

 

GC photos aren't like PCGS TrueViews but that is a good thing most times. PCGS TrueViews tend to be the best case scenario (and sometimes are too good) while GC photos tend to be more representative of the in-hand look. I've been disappointed before when buying a coin just based on a TrueView photo but haven't had that experience when buying from a GC photo. I see why sellers would prefer TrueView photos, but if it leads to more unhappy buyers (and a higher rate of returns), then it would not benefit GC to style their photography in that manner.

 

Showing both would probably be the best case for both parties. The GC photos have gotten a lot better but it is a fair criticism that they can make things look worse than they are.

Obviously ideally they keep improving and get that nice middle ground on their own. I think my biggest complaint on their photos would be when they do the extra shot trying to show color and seem to struggle with that where a TrueView would really benefit to show the toning

 

As soon as I see the GSC background I immediately pass.

 

What do you mean?