How a photo can lie!

[Coinery 926]

Now, mostly a coin photograph will make a coin look better than it really is, if it's carefully taken. However, not always!

Last night I referred back to the images of my recent penny post in hammered to take a quick look at the serifs (using a computer), as it was easier than getting the coin out! Now, I took the pictures using my iPhone, and uploaded them using the same tool...looked OK I thought?

Anyway, imagine my horror when I looked at my iPhone images on the big screen, and saw a corroded, encrusted, eroded, coin, with thick dark crustaceans all over it, instead of the rather nice quality coin I though I bought?

So, take a look at the serifs on the 'I'

I had to get the coin out quick and take another look! In fact the coin's fine but, my goodness, how that iPhone image of mine had lied. Look at the difference!

 

[Coinery 926]

The image of the ob and rev is a far better representation of the coin, with maybe a slighter darker, and dare I say, even grey tone. The iPhone image, well, I honestly can't fathom it at all!

[1949threepence 3,366]

There is absolutely no doubt that the camera does lie. One of the best examples i've seen of this was in the last few months. Compare and contrast the first picture taken by Atlas Numismatics, with the second taken by the buyer a few weeks later:-

 

 

[jaggy 528]

51 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

There is absolutely no doubt that the camera does lie. One of the best examples i've seen of this was in the last few months. Compare and contrast the first picture taken by Atlas Numismatics, with the second taken by the buyer a few weeks later:-

My experience with a recent purchase from Atlas was that their photo did not do the coin justice and understated its beauty. Specifically, it did not capture the toning. The coin was spectacular 'in-hand'.

Incidentally, Atlas gives the certificate number so I was able to look at the NGC photo of the coin which was better than the Atlas one.

Similar experience with Spink whose photography is generally horrible. Their photos tend to understate the coin as well.

My experience with London Coins, on the other hand, is that their photos tend to hide problems with the coin and specifically hairline scratches.

Edited March 10, 2017 by jaggy

[1949threepence 3,366]

56 minutes ago, jaggy said:

My experience with a recent purchase from Atlas was that their photo did not do the coin justice and understated its beauty. Specifically, it did not capture the toning. The coin was spectacular 'in-hand'.

Incidentally, Atlas gives the certificate number so I was able to look at the NGC photo of the coin which was better than the Atlas one.

Similar experience with Spink whose photography is generally horrible. Their photos tend to understate the coin as well.

My experience with London Coins, on the other hand, is that their photos tend to hide problems with the coin and specifically hairline scratches.

Indeed. I should say PCGS photo used by Atlas.

Anyway, the first thread I got these pics from is here and the second is here  

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by 1949threepence

[Coppers 57]

1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

There is absolutely no doubt that the camera does lie. One of the best examples i've seen of this was in the last few months. Compare and contrast the first picture taken by Atlas Numismatics, with the second taken by the buyer a few weeks later:-

 

 

 s

 

Is this the same coin?

Heritage auction

[jaggy 528]

4 minutes ago, Coppers said:

 

Is this the same coin?

Heritage auction

I think it is. The certificate number is the same. 

The Heritage photo makes the coin look worse and not better. Quite how PCGS gave it a PR66 is beyond me.

[1949threepence 3,366]

22 minutes ago, Coppers said:

 

Is this the same coin?

Heritage auction

I think so. Some scratches on the first pic are consistent with the second. But the Heritage pic makes the coin look worse with far more blemishes, especially on the reverse.

[copper123 1,352]

heritage pic is dreadful

[TomGoodheart 373]

On the left, photo used by Stacks in their auction listing.  On the right, coin I received.  I think I got the better of the two...

 

 

[Coinery 926]

1 hour ago, TomGoodheart said:

On the left, photo used by Stacks in their auction listing.  On the right, coin I received.  I think I got the better of the two...

 

 

A classic example! Apart from mine, that is! 

Edit to add: a classic HAMMERED example! The milled surfaces are even more problematic with the scourge  of reflection/refraction of light, etc.!

Edited March 10, 2017 by Coinery

[Rob 2,996]

A difficult one to call from a neutral viewpoint. Whilst realistic pictures as close to that seen in the hand are what people want and try to achieve when imaging their coins, the additional contrast used in catalogues to bring out the detail also helps to highlight the warts. I think it is fair to say that reducing the contrast in order to mask faults is not desirable from either perspective.

[TomGoodheart 373]

17 hours ago, Rob said:

A difficult one to call from a neutral viewpoint. Whilst realistic pictures as close to that seen in the hand are what people want and try to achieve when imaging their coins, the additional contrast used in catalogues to bring out the detail also helps to highlight the warts. I think it is fair to say that reducing the contrast in order to mask faults is not desirable from either perspective.

Oh, I'm not complaining, though I'm still not quite sure how they managed to pick such a contrasty image, it does highlight all the flaws.  But it made it a difficult call, given I wasn't going to get a chance to see the coin in the hand as to how high to bid.  In the end I suspect it being unslabbed helped me more than a little.  Shame the obv is a bit weak, but the reverse is a bit better and it was a chance to get a NH coin within budget.  Same dies as Brooker 407.