A study of online marketing by Great Southern Coins

Many heated opinions have been expressed on this forum about buying coins from Great Southern Coins (referred to as GSC). I think many of us (and newer collectors) would benefit from a precise study of GSC's photos compared to the actual coins received.

I have bought from them about four times now, and I downloaded their photos for each purchase. I will use these photos and my own photos for a series of case studies. Anyone is welcome to add their analysis about photographic techniques, the visibility or masking of surface features, whether tradeoffs are made (say, in eye appeal vs. clinical accuracy vs. toning vs. luster), postprocessing, image presentation on the web, and so on. I would like to throw a little more light and a little less heat on understanding GSC’s photos. In the process, we may learn something applicable to all online photographs.

I preface this analysis with my own experience. I have felt disappointed upon opening my package and first seeing the coins I received. These coins are the exact coins in the photos and I can match up the surface marks to prove it. Upon reflection, the fault was not with the photos, but with my ability to interpret them. The information was all there for me.

Let’s make this another opportunity for teaching. We can compare GSC’s photos detail by detail to the actual coins, using our own photos with varying lighting and exposures. I will start if off.

Some members have stated that the photos are small and poor quality, while others can expand the same photos to a large size with excellent fidelity. I hope to also discuss the differences in their photos on different devices. My initial premise is: their photos are consistent, accurate, and not doctored, if for no other reason than that's too time-consuming for their volume of sales. (I would use a fixed setup and just pop each coin in front of the camera for a quick shot and go on to the next.)

I think education is key here; we also need to learn what we are talking about by examining and proving the accusations that are made. Whether they are reputable or perfect may not be the point after all; we won’t change them. What we may be able to change is our skill in seeing what is in their photos, then working within those parameters to wisely choose to bid or not to bid.


Case Study 1. 1890 Indian Head Cent Proof “1890 Indian Head Penny PROOF, Richly Toned Choice GEM PF++”

Original Vendor Photos (joined by me for display)








Impressions

When this arrived I was disappointed. I posted the coin in another thread back in January and the consensus was that it is a proof.

Here is what I did not like:

· My impression was of a brown, lifeless coin. Here is a photo like that.




· There is a spot of corrosion above the middle bead of the necklace.

· There might be the beginning of corrosion to the left of the D and at the 2:00 position above the headdress.

· The back has a spot that looks suspect near the shield.




Analysis

The GSC photos do show these artifacts, but it is not simple to know what they are.

1. Toning – The first photo above shows that the height of the obverse image is not the same as the reverse. (The reverse is taller.) The obverse image turns out to be 493 pixels wide and 473 pixels tall. This means that the coin was tilted on the vertical axis while being imaged. After doing some math, that foreshortening corresponds to a tilt of 16.4 degrees. I usually shoot at a much shallower angle.


Holding the coin in the sun, I see that the colors flash when I tip its 2x2 about half an inch towards the light. That is about the same angle. I went back and photographed it again, and came up with this image after several tries. You need to tilt the platform, readjust the light positions, and shoot about 1.0 to 1.3 stops underexposed.





It seems that their photo is still better than my best effort. But at least I can tell that the photo is not juiced in any way – it’s just really good.

2. The obverse spots are not as visible in their single obverse shot as they are in my less colorful shot. But my glamour shot, just like theirs, essentially hides the questionable spots buried in all the color.

3. The reverse shot shows the exact same pink bullseye next to the shield as mine. Only my dull shot shows that there may be a pinprick of corrosion developing. With that knowledge in hand, I might deduce that a chemical reaction is starting to spread from that spot, and that the results of that reaction are causing a deposition on the surface, and that those depositions create a thin-film interference pattern that shows as a pink splotch.


Conclusions

I am cautious about my conclusions. Your reactions may be stronger.

1. GSC is disingenuous, but probably not any more so than the industry norm. They could have written a description that pointed out the potential flaws. They could have provided a photo in addition to the glamour shot that allowed a more clinical inspection of the coin. Yet I cannot hold them to a standard that few others meet, either.

2. The photograph is really good. I have not matched its quality yet. I can use their photo to match the flaws I see in hand, but I just cannot interpret them (yet).


3. I still do not know if the coin would grade. Perhaps, as some say, it was already graded and in a Details holder. Or, maybe the flaws I identified would keep it from grading. Or, maybe it is PF64. This uncertainty lingers because the coin is ungraded and because of a cloud of suspicion around GSC’s practices.


4. In this case, for this coin, I feel the GSC coin was well represented by the glamor shot they chose to show. Overall, I like the coin, do not fret about the tiny flaws, and do not have any reason to feel disappointed.

Please feel free to expand upon these initial observations. Other examples are welcome; I hope to continue with others of my own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Newbs will be fooled. Bravo analysis my friend.

 

I've never understood the hatred I've seen towards them. I've gotten some awesome coins from them before. I don't think they alter or juice their pictures... I just think they are really good at showing the coin at it's best angle. Here is a coin I bought from them (thought I had saved their pictures, but cannot find them). Notice how I brought the purple out in the pictures, by getting the light just right. Their pictures also showed the purple.

Here is how PCGS imaged it. Not as colorful, which I wish they had captured.


Since mine shows more colors, did I juice them? Nope, just found the perfect angle.

 

Here is one of my favorite toned Indians. Notice in the video the color really pops at some angles, and just looks dark and dull at other angles. The trick is getting a picture with the POP.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BUNwlhchCXq/?taken-by=elizabethtown_coins&hl=en

 

Believe what you choose....I choose to believe what I know... and that's it is not a well kept secret here in the Mid-Atlantic what this company in question is about.
The old saying 40,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong.....well there's not that many dealers but 99.99% of dealers,or wholesalers here wouldn't buy from said company. It's also well known that wholesalers dump their junk unloading their problem inventories to open arms.

 

I have sellers on eBay I deal with and I know their habits. I would say that 90%+ of the coins I get from GSC are buffed or cleaned in some fashion. So I bid with that in mind and know when I get the coin it will probably have to be a "pocket piece" for a few months. I also limit any purchases to specific VAMs I am trying to hit. They don't VAM Morgans, so there are overlooked and underpriced bargains. But for those who are outside of Morgans I can understand that there can be real issues with their coins. My advice is to go into the transaction with your eyes open.

It seems to me that they have a business model that works for them and they are unlikely to change until it no longer works. While the conversation here is comforting, truthfully it will change nothing. "Caveat emptor"

 

Paddy - to a great extent, that is exactly the point of this exercise. Some people, say @V. Kurt Bellman, believe you can purchase wisely if you exercise caution. Others think the odds of a happy purchase are too remote to feel safe.

My goal, recognizing that we won't change them, is to see if we can change ourselves. If we understand how to see through their photos, then maybe we can avail ourselves of what they offer when appropriate. If, on the other hand, we cannot trust what they show us, ever, then we all should avoid them. So I am trying to find out with more certainty one way or the other.

Case Study 2. 1883 Liberty Nickel (Racketeer) “1883 Liberty Nickel, V Nickel, No Cents”

Original Vendor Photos (joined by me for display)




On this coin GSC makes absolutely no claim to condition. The coin portion of the image is about 468 x 464 pixels, so these photos were taken essentially face-on, with a little bit of angling to the light.

These photos show a coin with excellent detailing: The hair and stars are crisp and there is sharp striking of the grain and corn ears on the reverse. The fields show a bit of brown coloration – could it be toning? There is some darkness on the bust, which just might be a dark exposure often used on reflective coins. There is a series of small rim dents at the top of the obverse.

I took a shot at $35 and won.

Impressions
When this arrived I had mixed feelings.
I liked:

• The coin has nice cartwheel luster, both on the reverse and obverse.

Here is what I did not like:

• My impression was of a brown stained, lifeless coin. Here is a photo like that. (I have a better opinion now that I know it better.)

Analysis
The GSC photos are brutally honest.

1. They do not show all the hairline scratches that are visible at the 1:00 and 9:00 positions in my photo. But I just looked with a loupe and I can’t see them in hand, either.
2. The brown dirt on the surface was accurately portrayed.
3. The luster of the coin is simply not apparent. Given the depth of detail, one could expect there to be luster, but there is no sparkle shown on the photo and they make no claims at all about grade in their title.

Conclusions

1. I saw what I wanted to see in this photo. I wanted it to be a brilliant coin. I wanted to think that it might be underexposed to keep the highlights from being too bright. Once the coin was in hand I could see that the dark areas in the fields were just plain dirt.
2. I bid modestly and did not venture much. I merely wanted a No Cents racketeer nickel, and this one has terrific detail.
3. I conclude that the GSC photo was clinically accurate and did not flatter the coin in any way. If anything, there was more luster they could have shown. Neither did they write any flattering prose.

I conclude that this coin was fairly represented by GSC, that I have received the coin in the photos. On the whole I think the coin is a very nice circulated nickel with imperceptible wear. It has a good look to it, good luster and some dirt from in-hand use (proving it wasn't cleaned), and the price I paid was quite reasonable.

 

I just cherry picked great southern again last night!

 

Whadja get?

 

Can't say until it arrives.... just to be safe I will say thought that I guess others saw it, because it went higher than it normally would, but I think it's still worth about twice what I paid.

 

Like any high-volume dealer, they can be cherypicked by someone who knows more about the particular issue than them, and enough about imaging to properly evaluate their photos. In your niche, for you, they're easy pickings.

 

That's true jwitt, you are smarter than the average bear.

 

So, what are we to conclude from all of this? That they present their offerings in the best light possible? Isn't that the same that anyone who is serious about selling would do? It looks to me like they don't actively try to hide anything and their descriptions aren't misleading. We often complain about tiny or out of focus pictures; now should we also complain about highly detailed photos, too?

We've had numerous of threads here on how to photograph your coins to make them look their best. Maybe we should invite GSC to tell us their secrets; they seem to have the answer.

 

Why not show the coin photo and description and then explain what grade you would assign. After all, that is the whole point of this exercise. Waiting till after you receive the coin to reveal your prediction on grade defeats the point.

If you are concerned that GSC has spies on Cointalk, simply wait until they ship the coin to show it.

Lastly, GSC is a high volume seller and I'm sure it is easy to cherry pick minor varieties on some of their coins, as it is with all dealers.

I feel compelled to mention that GSC sells a ton of graded material as well as some raw generic material that is described accurately.

The problem is with their raw material that has numismatic value. With many of those coins, they use deceptive photos in conjunction with high grade descriptions to boost the sale price of their coins.

 

So your conclusion is that the GSC photos are brutally honest but they don't show the hairlines on the coin which would prove to any potential buyer that the coin is circulated.

You also make no mention of the extreme difference in contrast between their photos and yours. Do you think that was accidental?

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my last post. XF 1883 Liberty Nickels are not rare and are basically generic material. There is no monetary incentive to overgrade this coin.

 

Actually, my latest purchase was graded, so probably does not help this thread much. My past raw purchases have gone well though.

 

I've purchased several raw coins from them with the understanding that what I saw in the photos are probably not what I'll see in normal light. I try to look for wear at the typical high points and assume that the coin has been dipped at one time or another. I'm putting raw coins in Dansco albums and will fill a slot with a nice details coin to save some money. I am very surprised at times to see how high auction prices get when comparing said coins with certified non details coins sold in prior Heritage, etc auctions.

 

And may I ask exactly why said purchases have gone "well", and if you can honestly say that the same would hold true if made before you gained the knowledge and experience you now have?

With all due respect, it's one thing for a knowledgeable individual to purchase from them, but can be something else altogether for a less-experienced person to do so, and is why care really should be taken when expressing positive experiences. Their general reputation isn't unwarranted, nor is it an innocent coincidence that they often offer raw coins that have been most certainly freed from the burden of wearing a "scarlet letter".

 

The technique on your bottom photo pair is either "fly" or "dope", I don't know which. Until I'm ready with my pictures, all I'll say at this point is "IGNORE THEIR LISTING TITLES COMPLETELY - LARGELY THEY ARE NONSENSE". Look at the coin pictures, HARD!!