PCGS Trueview Images Doctored Misleading !! My PCGS Unboxing BUY COINS From Us portsmouthcoinshop.com/ Go to our help community here for coin help coinauctionshelp.com/forum/index.php More videos! www.youtube.com/@CoinHELPu/videos Join CONECA conecaonline.org/
All I can discuss is my own experience with Trueview. I've found that MS coins always look better in hand than in the images, proof coins always look worse in hand (the reflectivity of the proofs in the photos covers up the hairlines so the coins appear to be higher grade than they really are). Circulated coins are a mixed bag with Trueview. The photos do tend to show all the dings and scrapes and spots and stains. But if the color appears wrong, as you stated, it can affect the perceived value of the coin.
Proof coins often have fields so dark in images that spots ... are not visible. I was able to return a proof 1963 50c that had a spot so obvious that I could take a picture of it with my phone that did not show up in the Heritage Auction image -- but it cost me $15 for return shipping.
Bet they are turning up the tone and hue, then a shot of heat lol , some true view coins are a face palm along with a good laugh? Who you gotta know? Most of my submissions come back decent, sometimes I can't believe what thier telling me
Even the stamp graders admit they enhance images to "flatter" the submission. It is important to remember the TPGs are also in the marketing business. Appreciate your balanced discussion thanks.
There's nothing wrong with taking a flattering image, it's the unnecessary filters to saturate or brighten the colour. Idk, they get deceptive with it. It should be a nice image, but it shouldn't be a lie.
It’s really a shame they are destroying the recorded history of the coin. It mis represents the real image. Being a new collector if I were to look at the image it would be a terrible way to compare coins to images at certain grades. We rely heavily on those images
Yeah I can certainly tell you as a coin photography geek... don't. Just don't rely on artistic images to tell you what a coin looks like. Idk what your situation is but always buy in person if you can. Maybe you live far away from anywhere so you have to shop online but don't just trust the most glowed up professional image of the coin. You want lots of angles and a video as well, especially on toned stuff. Stay safe out there, and happy hunting.
Informative and thought provoking as always, Daniel. Often wondered about the grading services not releasing population numbers for each details grade level. If nothing else, it would be neat to see the population differences between the details and problem-free grades of older US type coins.
Great topic after out recent discussion. Very educational. It seems to me that currently True View is only useful for seeing the details of the coin, and the actual in holder pictures should supplement to show the actual color and/or toning. True View should not be used to determine the actual color in hand. Sadly, some sites will use the True View to mislead buyers. Thanks Daniel!
@@charleshash4919 I'm going to assume what you mean with non cameo proofs is that in the images, they look like they are cameo. That kinda just happens. Cameo shows up a lot better in high quality images, so even if the cameo isn't strong enough to get the designation, it will likely show up strong in a picture. I photograph coins and was taking a picture of a regular cameo, and without any altercations, you'd think the coin was obviously DCAM from the image. I mean you can get true BLACK fields and white devices really easily with a direct head on shot with a ring light.
I believe I read that their head photographer left to work with another grading company, or auction company. I think Phil was his name. Could be the reason you are seeing more of this
I've been collecting for over a decade now and just started recently selling.. with that I have realize how freaking easy it is manipulate the lighting or angle of the camera and make a very obvious problem coin look problem free. Not to mention the dozens and dozens of ways to edit the photo post production...
Thanks for bringing this up Daniel. I've been taken in by a couple of TrueView photos just here lately. One, a SLQ to the tune of $1200.00. It's still a nice coin and I'll keep it but it wasn't what I thought I bought. Great vide as is usual.
I wouldn't necessarily say the coin has been misrepresented, they probably use a different/warmer lighting source whenever they take these trueviews because they also fear the coin being misrepresented so they try to capture "everything" on a coin. On uncirculated coins, it probably doesn't matter as much, but for all of these circulated coins, it does make the coin look different than in person. I bet if you try to take a picture of these coins with the flash feature on your phone that you'll get a pretty similar effect.
This is the first time I saw you showing a coin that I wanted, and I actually got to buy it. Usually, they're sold before I can get to it. Solid CC half! Thanks Daniel!
PCGS has been known to do things they don’t tell their clients, like cleaning coins lightly before encapsulating them. Now, there is something else. Thanks Daniel for the informative video!
Showing me the Trueview image first is a red flag in my online shopping. I think, "Oh, there's probably something wrong with the coin that the Trueview intense stadium lighting is trying to cover up."
Thanks Daniel ! Very interesting. I never really noticed this. That Indian Head cent is a brown but True View makes it look like a red or at least a red/brown. They list it as a brown. Ugh. If you like pictures only, it will throw you off a bit. Read the description and look at the coin. For the others, some look washed out. For VAMS, I did find a 1904-O Fishhook the other day. Looks like an MS63.
Great video, Daniel. I believe that all Graders should have a Warning labeled that the photo will probably be different in color than having the coins in hand. This is probably a good start to solving the problem. Also, adding the pictures of the coins without the true-view lighting on them also. Thanks, Daniel, for all you do for the hobby, and have a great day.
I've noticed that same thing. You've had coins on your website, and I've looked at the pictures on PCGS and their pictures are very different, just as you've demonstrated. I wonder if they're photoshoping images and what they are using for lighting. Either way, it could be a problem if a seller uses PCGS images to sell a coin, and the buyer gets something much different. Whatever PCGS is currently doing needs to be corrected. By the way, that 1803 Draped Bust penny is a very nice-looking coin. I'd only looked at your images until I saw this video.
I can see an issue where a buyer thinks the coin has been substituted because the actual coin looks different than the True Scan image. Thank you for illustrating the differences.
Thank you Danielle for the very informative information about PCGS I'm new to hobby but I learned so much information from you keep up the good work and like you say have a nice day
Short and semi sweet... Yes sir, the images you specifically point out are somewhat misleading ( I'm in a better good mood today🙂) The images on your website are fantabulous and hold way more integrity than TrueView. Sometimes less is better. I can tell your cam set up isn't a Fisher Priced product and it does great. Thanks again Brotha D🙏🕉️💯
That is sooooo true!!! They don’t want to show the entire coin so we won’t get to see the key markers for proof coin identification. ( for peace dollars)
Interesting. As you said, particularly noticeable on the coppers (TruView really improves eye appeal !), but also to some extent on the V nickle as well. But, if you are not using those images to market/sell the coin, then perhaps it doesn't matter much.
I’ve never been a big fan of the True View images from PCGS or the similar service from NGC. I’ve always just preferred the images of the entire slab that NGC has an option and I’ve used that to help me judge a coin prior to purchase more than True View
Very good video Daniel. There is no doubt lighting manipulation to make it appear aesthetic. You clearly state its not fraud i agree. It is quite obvious there are lighting and contrast adjustments. I have noticed on high grade coin images they are brightened and made to appear more rich in color. Is the grader taking the image maybe he or she perceives color and contrast different. Enjoyed content Daniel have to run the old lady is on my ass for watching another Coinhelpu video have a great evening
Daniel...Would you pls consider making a video on: (how to tell w/CICULATED Morgans - esp below AU 50)...if they are CLEANED or not? I've seen your excellent videos on UNC Morgans, being able to tell if they're cleaned; but a video on the Circulated Morgans I think would interest a lot of pp.. Thank you.
Typical signs to look out for is uniformly white, untarnished metal on circulated coins. Also hairlines. If you see long hairlines that are all the same thickness that aren't perfectly straight and they kind of dance like a spiderweb shimmering in the sun under a breeze as you spin the coin in the light... cleaned. Don't confuse this for light abrasion. You can get similar patterns on UNCs that have been in a pocket for a day but the lines won't be that long and they are scattered more randomly than a wiped coin. Something I recommend you do is get a sacagawea dollar that's circulated a bit and just rub it with your fingers until it gets shiny gold. Should take you a half hour or so while watching TV or whatever. Or do it with a junk silver half dollar. Then look at it under intense light and notice all the fine lines that the dirt in your fingers scratched onto the coins. This will show you in hand the patterns to look out for with cleaning hairlines. Note: This is just advice on one type of cleaning, probably the most common. Also a 60-100 watt incandescent bulb from 18 inches away in a lamp you can aim directly with is optimal for viewing coins. Other light hides key details.
@@jameskerry3826 Oh! Bonus experiment. After you do the cleaned coin with your fingers, get a pocket coin. For maybe 12 bucks US you can buy an UNC silver kennedy. Get a nice BU with not a lot of marks. Let it jingle in the pocket with a couple small coins maybe one penny, and 2 dimes, say for a couple hours while walking. Then look at what those coins did to the lustre. Look how the fine hairlines caused by that look different to the ones on the coin you wiped clean. A lot of untrained or sloppy graders will call the pocket coin cleaned when it isn't.
Some coins are difficult to photograph what I think could be happening with the brown copper coins is not enough lighting and they make up for it by the white balance
So, TrueView isn’t an actual true view? That is misleading to a potential buyer of a coin and possibly hurting a seller. ( I park in a driveway, but drive on the parkway. 😉 ) Nice returns, Daniel. Thanks for sharing with us. Also, we appreciate what you do for the community.
I can see your point about (especially the copper) being misleading. What I see is that the "true-view" allows you to see the actual details a lot better. But as long as people are aware of the image differences it is not a big deal to me. Just be aware of the photo "editing".
I've seen ur videos about some EBay sellers altering their photos....but I'd NEVER have expected PCGS being the top coin certification company for years to be intentionally altering images of their graded coins! This is pure deception with NO benefit to anyone! Coin collectors & dealers all need to collectively apply major pressure on PCGS to halt this deceptive photo altering to prevent confusion, tension, & conflict when these coins get sold.
I'll be much more wary on buying copper coins with True View and insure that I get to see actual in holder shots to show the accurate color. In contrast I find that the phots taken by GreatCollections are very representative of reality. They take the coin in the holder and do not do any color adjustment as far as I can tell on about 20 copper coins.
Mrs Tizzo and I have software that can analyze these photos and see what, if any, effect has been applied to the photos. I was going to say if you send us a couple pictures we can give it a shot and see what The software says, but I guess we can look those up ourselves. The same software was actually used to analyze the Mars photos and discovered that NASA had applied and orange color to them.
In addition, the grading companies are not upgrading images when coins are "conserved" and then re-holdered. This makes it difficult to use grading service images to verify that a certified coin offered in-auction or in-store is not a fake. I think they should provide before conservation and after conservation images. I've recently bought two coins with this issue -- prices were substantially lower than expected for the grade and coins could be ID-verified by seral numbers & field marks, but many bidders apparently did not trust the coins.
this is why i don't buy coins online with true view pictures only. i want to see the coin in a holder. toned coins especially look different in true view than when in a holder.
With so many cleaned coins out there it really shows that a good population of people who do coins really don’t know what they’re doing. as far as the images from the true view, I have had that issue with them for many years. I’ve had people turn down my coins because they didn’t think it was the one that they had in the photo. It’s pretty sad how these companies have manipulated this simple hobby, and made it difficult. With CAC now grading coins, a kind of puts a middle finger to the other two big ones I think. It really shows how the pissing contest has become so bad.
Youre right and i think its on purpose so people clean coins to match the image they still get paid and protect their population while u have a cleaned coin😂
We can come up with all kinds of excuses but there's no denying this makes the coins look different than they are in person. You can see everything you need to see in my images, so there's no reason to brighten or soften to the point the coin has a different patina.
I get what you are saying about the brightening up of the coins. However, I think I know why they are doing it especially to brown/dark brown copper strikes. Even with good lighting the darkness of the coin hides a lot of details in the real images whenever photographed. I think they are brightening up those photos to show the individual bumps, bag marks scratches for anyone to see better when comparing it with the naked eye.
I always looked at the "true View" concept as their way of showing all of the defects [divots and scratches] on the coin and not as a photograph of how it looks in hand.
But that is not what PCGS claims, and these images do not do that, they're just large enough to see them more, this lighting and toning effect is enhancing the appearance of the coins.
I have been collecting coins for most of my life. There are a couple of things I would like to point out.Two of them are the words "cleaned" and "population." Cleaned. What is the textbook definition of cleaned? Is there such a thing as a circulated coin that has NOT been cleaned? OK, it is around 1850. I take some coins out of my coin purse. I drop one in the dirt. The very act of picking that coin up and brushing the dirt from it is technically cleaning it. Now, it is 1910. I am sitting at the counter having a cup of tea with a few coins sitting next to my cup. The guy next to me accidentally hits my cup with his elbow and spills some of my tea on the coins. I take a napkin and wipe the tea from them. Again, that is cleaning. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Now, when PCGS defines a coin as having been "cleaned," where is the line drawn between a coin that has been cleaned or not? See my objection to that label? Not your fault, but PCGS's fault. Second thing is population. There is no less meaningless number on the face of the earth. It implies that a coin is rarer than it really is. The only real meaning population counts have is that this is the number of that coin that has been submitted to that grading company that received that grade. However, how many coins get cracked open and resubmitted? How many of that particular coin have been submitted to other grading companies? How many companies may have graded the same coin - and potentially more than once? How many of that coin in that grade might be in other collections that have never been submitted for grading? As such, population numbers are totally fictitious and as useless as a bicycle is to a fish. Sorry. I don't mean to come across as being hostile, but these issues sure do push my buttons.
No, you're absolutely right. The thing with a cleaned coin is that you can always throw it in your pocket for a month or two and let it jingle around until all the cleaning evidence is gone from legitimate wear. If you have a cleaned UNC and keep it in your pocket for 50 years until it's an FR-2, yeah it's not cleaned anymore. That metal is gone. It's become legitimate again. In other words, cleaning can be cleaned off. It's kind of an absurd concept but it's really about if there's evidence of the cleaning or not.
I like Trueview. I think it clearly shows the wear and damage of the coin better than a typical photo can. However, I don't want to buy most coins unless I can also see an undoctored photo to see the toning and eye-appeal.
All those true view coins are subjected to special lighting that the dealer or collector will never see in person, because we would have to crack the coin out of the slab to view it like that... I will say, though, when I sold off my collection on E-bay, I took and posted pictures of the actual slabbed coins in their listings, but usually posted the "trueview" image as the main photo, the one that would "catch the eye" in the E-bay search gallery. The "trueview" image is simply the best possible appearance of the coin the collector will ever see, but whenever I see them in E-bay searches, I always look for the personal photos taken by the seller... but if there are none, the seller is doing a disservice to his potential customer.
"The "trueview" image is simply the best possible appearance of the coin the collector will ever see". I disagree, the images is altered, trueview should be just that, my image is better, it portrays the coin as it appears in hand, that's what trueview is or they need to change the name of their image service.
@@CoinHELPu I've purchased true view coins w/ colorful toning, but in-hand only appears when tilted at various angles under natural light. Perhaps w/ cuprous coins, which can have patinas that darken the surface, PCGS may "brighten" the coin for true view, I've certainly seen it w/ patinated proof cents... still, as I mentioned re: e-bay listings, sellers using true view images should post their own photos.
i Think they just use very bright lights to take detailed picture because if image is dark it's hard to compare it for authenticity reasons. I doubt they use photoshop to edit images, its to much work. Also it really depends on camera used, maybe its just color profile of camera that had contrast/saturation bumped up, either way i get what you mean, maybe people should write them up and let them know about this problem or at least get official response why they do it.
I'm wondering if the trueview purpose is to let you see the coin in a light that shows all of its goodness and flaws. In other words, it's going to look "better" than if you had it in your hand, but maybe the point is not to make it look better but to actually be able to show you every single detail of the face of that coin..
I believe the problem here is the color temperature of the light used in the true view photograph and the color temperature used in your video are different. The color temperature in your office is probably from fluorescent lights in the ceiling. This type of light contains more green than direct sunlight. Light from incandescent light bulbs contain a lot of red. Most LED lights designed for household use are balanced with the same amount of red color as incandescent lights giving them a 'warm' look. The light in the true view picture is probably from flash or a steady light source, both of which would should be balanced balanced to resemble sunlight which contains a lot of blue color. I don't think PCGS would deliberately alter the color balance of their pictures. I think comparing the the PCGS pictures with what you see is like comparing apples and oranges. Also LCD monitors, cameras, and other video devices all see color a little differently. To make a more accurate comparison, you would have to duplicate PCGS's lighting and camera setup using all of the same color temperature, resolution, and contrast settings. EDIT: The color brown is also the most difficult color to reproduce in any kind of photography digital or otherwise.
You’re missing the entire point. I am a professional photographer and I understand the details more than most people. The trueview images are not true view. A professional photographer can make a coin look like anything they want, PCGS makes claims about their images but it’s not true view, they do not look like the coin. It’s that simple. PCGS has all the equipment and tech and knowledge at their disposal, no excuses for their images not looking like the coin.
There's no complete agreement on what lighting to consider standard for coin photography. Or for most other photography. It's much more than just color temperature, which is only useful for comparing two different incandescent light sources. Fluorescent lighting uses a blend of fluorescing pigments to produce a spectrum and for common home lighting the consumer can choose between warm white, cool white and daylight as categories that have different balances of the component colors. Halogen lighting gives a spectrum that has fewer peaks, just like incandescent, but commonly with a higher color temperature than regular incandescent. Then there's LED lighting and that's also using fluorescent pigments to blend something that approximately matches a specified standard. The real standard seems like it should be sunlight. But that's highly variable, partially because of the mixing between the direct sunlight and all the indirect light. So, except for tightly controlled conditions for specific purposes there's no such thing as a standard spectrum for artificial lighting. Now think about how the process of photography is another variable before any adjustments are applied to the recorded image. In film photography the rendition of colors is intentionally different between different categories of film and also by the chemistry used to develop the image. Often people are intending to take pictures of people and want skin tones to be flattering. Most commonly sold consumer films for prints distort colors for that purpose. If a person wants to photograph artwork or flowers and have the colors really po that's a different film. For scientific uses separate exposures through specific filters can give the most accurate information on the colors present. Then we get to digital cameras. As with everything manufactured for real life uses a number of choices are made that involve compromises to have the largest number of happy consumers. The sensors and filters are chosen to give a happy medium for the most common uses by the intended customer base. Recently several high end phones that are promoted to people that are serious about higher quality photography were found to be very poor at reproducing skin tones of darker skinned people. That effect came from algorithmically adjusting the images based on comparing what is in the image to a very large number of stock images and adjusting towards what is commonly in a portrait. Cameras in phones obviously are limited by the sizes of the lenses, the sensor size and how much actual control of aperture and focus and focal length can be crammed into a tiny amount of space. But higher end digital cameras are better, right? Not necessarily. Unless you have everything set for manual adjustment or are willing to work only with the raw images directly choices are being applied automatically to correct for lighting, type of photograph, etc to give the likelihood of being acceptable with the least amount of further adjustments. All this is to make the point that there are very many variables, with no agreement on what defines an accurate general purpose image. Only by disclosing details about lighting source and placement, camera, lens, distance aperture and shutter speed, film or sensor details can a particular image be anything other than an approximation that fits some persons subjective opinion as being accurate. And if you want to get further into the weeds your eyes, brain and even mood affect your vision and so does the environment and especially ambient lighting where you are viewing the image.
You're thinking to deep into this, technology today allows for a camera to be set, to actually interpret the scene so it looks exactly as it should once the image is took. Then you have raw settings that allows manual adjustments as well, so there's no excuse in publishing an image that is not trueview when it isn't a trueview of the coin.
@@CoinHELPuWhile it's possible to get pretty close, with extremely expensive technology. I doubt that anyone is spending NASA levels to do so. All affordable cameras are using 4 filters maximum and interpolation algorithms that are based on simplifying assumptions. I definitely agree that Trueview™ as implemented could be improved greatly. And that Trueview™ is a misleading name for what they are doing. I'm overthinking only because I used to be paid handsomely to do matching adjustments to get the best agreement between scanning, cameras, displays and printers for commercial imaging for publication.
Light pollution in the photo booth Probably a dei issue. Authenticated and in a case so it cant be harmed. All the rest is fluff. Dont need scratch guard, photos. Stop throwing the slabs at each other! I can take better pictures than grading service provides. Its a racket.
Yeah exactly. I have a DSLR and a ring light. I can take the photos myself and since they're my coins, I have the patience to line everything up just right and edit it to look exactly like it actually does with the same colour in the same brightness and intensity.
If you see this comment I still have this quarter that I still don't believe people have given fair look at it to see if it is missing both clads or if it is mixed. I see why a lot of these missing clads like bright copper on one side and I could see why people would take those out of circulation once found. And why this would have been in circulation if not believed was messed up. But people can't automatically think it's environmental damage because of look no more can people think always that a coin missing clad that there would a difference in weight always. Comment back and could even send to you.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
PCGS Trueview Images Doctored Misleading !! My PCGS Unboxing
BUY COINS From Us portsmouthcoinshop.com/
Go to our help community here for coin help coinauctionshelp.com/forum/index.php
More videos! www.youtube.com/@CoinHELPu/videos
Join CONECA conecaonline.org/
Come On Man.... PCGS / NGC .. Is A Scam .. Nothing But A Big Fat Scam
I have started collecting coins and I have 1841 penny ...nice looking
And I have alots good coins 1888 Indian head
I need to sell them so I can help my parents we just found out that both of them have cancer
PCGS is going to have buyers claiming the coins people are selling are fraudulent because they photoshopped the color.
Thanks Daniel always learning something from you
Thx for the heads-up!
All I can discuss is my own experience with Trueview. I've found that MS coins always look better in hand than in the images, proof coins always look worse in hand (the reflectivity of the proofs in the photos covers up the hairlines so the coins appear to be higher grade than they really are).
Circulated coins are a mixed bag with Trueview. The photos do tend to show all the dings and scrapes and spots and stains. But if the color appears wrong, as you stated, it can affect the perceived value of the coin.
Proof coins often have fields so dark in images that spots ... are not visible. I was able to return a proof 1963 50c that had a spot so obvious that I could take a picture of it with my phone that did not show up in the Heritage Auction image -- but it cost me $15 for return shipping.
For me on MS coins, it's always better in hand, but I have a sample size of 2 so it's not that accurate of a test.
Bet they are turning up the tone and hue, then a shot of heat lol , some true view coins are a face palm along with a good laugh? Who you gotta know? Most of my submissions come back decent, sometimes I can't believe what thier telling me
Even the stamp graders admit they enhance images to "flatter" the submission. It is important to remember the TPGs are also in the marketing business. Appreciate your balanced discussion thanks.
There's nothing wrong with taking a flattering image, it's the unnecessary filters to saturate or brighten the colour. Idk, they get deceptive with it. It should be a nice image, but it shouldn't be a lie.
It’s really a shame they are destroying the recorded history of the coin. It mis represents the real image. Being a new collector if I were to look at the image it would be a terrible way to compare coins to images at certain grades. We rely heavily on those images
Yeah I can certainly tell you as a coin photography geek... don't. Just don't rely on artistic images to tell you what a coin looks like. Idk what your situation is but always buy in person if you can. Maybe you live far away from anywhere so you have to shop online but don't just trust the most glowed up professional image of the coin. You want lots of angles and a video as well, especially on toned stuff. Stay safe out there, and happy hunting.
Eye opening topic. Thanks Daniel
Informative and thought provoking as always, Daniel. Often wondered about the grading services not releasing population numbers for each details grade level. If nothing else, it would be neat to see the population differences between the details and problem-free grades of older US type coins.
Great topic after out recent discussion. Very educational.
It seems to me that currently True View is only useful for seeing the details of the coin, and the actual in holder pictures should supplement to show the actual color and/or toning. True View should not be used to determine the actual color in hand. Sadly, some sites will use the True View to mislead buyers. Thanks Daniel!
I agree with your opinion on trueview. They are especially bad with toned coins
And non-cameo proof coins
@@charleshash4919 I'm going to assume what you mean with non cameo proofs is that in the images, they look like they are cameo. That kinda just happens. Cameo shows up a lot better in high quality images, so even if the cameo isn't strong enough to get the designation, it will likely show up strong in a picture. I photograph coins and was taking a picture of a regular cameo, and without any altercations, you'd think the coin was obviously DCAM from the image. I mean you can get true BLACK fields and white devices really easily with a direct head on shot with a ring light.
Great information. Thank you for sharing.
I believe I read that their head photographer left to work with another grading company, or auction company. I think Phil was his name. Could be the reason you are seeing more of this
Bingo. Phil Arnold is now working for Great Collections.
I've been collecting for over a decade now and just started recently selling.. with that I have realize how freaking easy it is manipulate the lighting or angle of the camera and make a very obvious problem coin look problem free. Not to mention the dozens and dozens of ways to edit the photo post production...
Agree. Photog enhancing the image. Going through mine now to compare. Thx Daniel
Thanks for bringing this up Daniel. I've been taken in by a couple of TrueView photos just here lately. One, a SLQ to the tune of $1200.00. It's still a nice coin and I'll keep it but it wasn't what I thought I bought. Great vide as is usual.
I think they are enhancing the contrast so the markings and wear and damage are more pronounced.
That is not why they're doing it, if you look at all the Trueviews, it's apparent they're trying to make the coins "pop", but it doesn't always work.
Your spot on Daniel....
Wish I would have seen this a few months ago. I learned the hard way that true views are not even close to what the coin looks like.
I wouldn't necessarily say the coin has been misrepresented, they probably use a different/warmer lighting source whenever they take these trueviews because they also fear the coin being misrepresented so they try to capture "everything" on a coin. On uncirculated coins, it probably doesn't matter as much, but for all of these circulated coins, it does make the coin look different than in person. I bet if you try to take a picture of these coins with the flash feature on your phone that you'll get a pretty similar effect.
I proved that the coin doesn't look the same, that in itself is deceiving whether on purpose or not.
This is the first time I saw you showing a coin that I wanted, and I actually got to buy it. Usually, they're sold before I can get to it. Solid CC half! Thanks Daniel!
Thank you
PCGS has been known to do things they don’t tell their clients, like cleaning coins lightly before encapsulating them. Now, there is something else. Thanks Daniel for the informative video!
That's a very rare occurrence and usually that's a misunderstanding or an employee mistake. I know that did happen but it was an error.
Showing me the Trueview image first is a red flag in my online shopping. I think, "Oh, there's probably something wrong with the coin that the Trueview intense stadium lighting is trying to cover up."
Thanks Daniel ! Very interesting. I never really noticed this. That Indian Head cent is a brown but True View makes it look like a red or at least a red/brown. They list it as a brown. Ugh. If you like pictures only, it will throw you off a bit. Read the description and look at the coin. For the others, some look washed out. For VAMS, I did find a 1904-O Fishhook the other day. Looks like an MS63.
I agree 100%...my toned coins I sent in and got back a month ago look like crap on true view...never again...
Yup! I have a couple I busted out and took my own pics of because the truviews were not so true
I like that Indian Head penny. Nice Coin. But, I'd have to agree that the Trueview pictures look misleading. Thanks for sharing, Daniel. 👍👍
Great video, Daniel. I believe that all Graders should have a Warning labeled that the photo will probably be different in color than having the coins in hand. This is probably a good start to solving the problem. Also, adding the pictures of the coins without the true-view lighting on them also. Thanks, Daniel, for all you do for the hobby, and have a great day.
Thank you Daniel, As always great video ❤🎉🎉🎉
I've noticed that same thing. You've had coins on your website, and I've looked at the pictures on PCGS and their pictures are very different, just as you've demonstrated. I wonder if they're photoshoping images and what they are using for lighting.
Either way, it could be a problem if a seller uses PCGS images to sell a coin, and the buyer gets something much different.
Whatever PCGS is currently doing needs to be corrected.
By the way, that 1803 Draped Bust penny is a very nice-looking coin. I'd only looked at your images until I saw this video.
I can see an issue where a buyer thinks the coin has been substituted because the actual coin looks different than the True Scan image. Thank you for illustrating the differences.
Thank you Danielle for the very informative information about PCGS I'm new to hobby but I learned so much information from you keep up the good work and like you say have a nice day
Short and semi sweet... Yes sir, the images you specifically point out are somewhat misleading ( I'm in a better good mood today🙂) The images on your website are fantabulous and hold way more integrity than TrueView. Sometimes less is better. I can tell your cam set up isn't a Fisher Priced product and it does great. Thanks again Brotha D🙏🕉️💯
That is sooooo true!!! They don’t want to show the entire coin so we won’t get to see the key markers for proof coin identification. ( for peace dollars)
Interesting. As you said, particularly noticeable on the coppers (TruView really improves eye appeal !), but also to some extent on the V nickle as well. But, if you are not using those images to market/sell the coin, then perhaps it doesn't matter much.
I’ve never been a big fan of the True View images from PCGS or the similar service from NGC. I’ve always just preferred the images of the entire slab that NGC has an option and I’ve used that to help me judge a coin prior to purchase more than True View
Let there be light. Let the light of truth shine in. 💥💥💥
Phil Arnold moved from PCGS to Great Collections recently, which is why the TVs have suffered.
Very good video Daniel. There is no doubt lighting manipulation to make it appear aesthetic. You clearly state its not fraud i agree. It is quite obvious there are lighting and contrast adjustments. I have noticed on high grade coin images they are brightened and made to appear more rich in color. Is the grader taking the image maybe he or she perceives color and contrast different. Enjoyed content Daniel have to run the old lady is on my ass for watching another Coinhelpu video have a great evening
Excellent content and subject matter. I really enjoy the straight shot info.
Thanks
Daniel...Would you pls consider making a video on: (how to tell w/CICULATED Morgans - esp below AU 50)...if they are CLEANED or not? I've seen your excellent videos on UNC Morgans, being able to tell if they're cleaned; but a video on the Circulated Morgans I think would interest a lot of pp.. Thank you.
Typical signs to look out for is uniformly white, untarnished metal on circulated coins. Also hairlines. If you see long hairlines that are all the same thickness that aren't perfectly straight and they kind of dance like a spiderweb shimmering in the sun under a breeze as you spin the coin in the light... cleaned. Don't confuse this for light abrasion. You can get similar patterns on UNCs that have been in a pocket for a day but the lines won't be that long and they are scattered more randomly than a wiped coin. Something I recommend you do is get a sacagawea dollar that's circulated a bit and just rub it with your fingers until it gets shiny gold. Should take you a half hour or so while watching TV or whatever. Or do it with a junk silver half dollar. Then look at it under intense light and notice all the fine lines that the dirt in your fingers scratched onto the coins. This will show you in hand the patterns to look out for with cleaning hairlines.
Note: This is just advice on one type of cleaning, probably the most common. Also a 60-100 watt incandescent bulb from 18 inches away in a lamp you can aim directly with is optimal for viewing coins. Other light hides key details.
@@TheWinstonDouble Thank you.
@@jameskerry3826 Oh! Bonus experiment. After you do the cleaned coin with your fingers, get a pocket coin. For maybe 12 bucks US you can buy an UNC silver kennedy. Get a nice BU with not a lot of marks. Let it jingle in the pocket with a couple small coins maybe one penny, and 2 dimes, say for a couple hours while walking. Then look at what those coins did to the lustre. Look how the fine hairlines caused by that look different to the ones on the coin you wiped clean. A lot of untrained or sloppy graders will call the pocket coin cleaned when it isn't.
I have one here ua-cam.com/video/j4zqdN_6Cng/v-deo.html
Great. @@CoinHELPu
Some coins are difficult to photograph what I think could be happening with the brown copper coins is not enough lighting and they make up for it by the white balance
So, TrueView isn’t an actual true view? That is misleading to a potential buyer of a coin and possibly hurting a seller. ( I park in a driveway, but drive on the parkway. 😉 ) Nice returns, Daniel. Thanks for sharing with us. Also, we appreciate what you do for the community.
I can see your point about (especially the copper) being misleading. What I see is that the "true-view" allows you to see the actual details a lot better. But as long as people are aware of the image differences it is not a big deal to me. Just be aware of the photo "editing".
I have heard their photo department head guy left to join Great Collections full-time. Might be interesting to see how that impacts both companies.
I've seen ur videos about some EBay sellers altering their photos....but I'd NEVER have expected PCGS being the top coin certification company for years to be intentionally altering images of their graded coins! This is pure deception with NO benefit to anyone! Coin collectors & dealers all need to collectively apply major pressure on PCGS to halt this deceptive photo altering to prevent confusion, tension, & conflict when these coins get sold.
Here is 400 likes 👍 great video, they all are.
Hi Daniel.Ya I agre, espcially the copper coins.Color is so much more important on cents especially.At the very least it is misleading.😮
I'll be much more wary on buying copper coins with True View and insure that I get to see actual in holder shots to show the accurate color. In contrast I find that the phots taken by GreatCollections are very representative of reality. They take the coin in the holder and do not do any color adjustment as far as I can tell on about 20 copper coins.
Mrs Tizzo and I have software that can analyze these photos and see what, if any, effect has been applied to the photos. I was going to say if you send us a couple pictures we can give it a shot and see what The software says, but I guess we can look those up ourselves. The same software was actually used to analyze the Mars photos and discovered that NASA had applied and orange color to them.
That's great but I photograph 100's of coins a month and have for years, I know when an image is manipulated and usually how.
In addition, the grading companies are not upgrading images when coins are "conserved" and then re-holdered. This makes it difficult to use grading service images to verify that a certified coin offered in-auction or in-store is not a fake. I think they should provide before conservation and after conservation images. I've recently bought two coins with this issue -- prices were substantially lower than expected for the grade and coins could be ID-verified by seral numbers & field marks, but many bidders apparently did not trust the coins.
this is why i don't buy coins online with true view pictures only. i want to see the coin in a holder. toned coins especially look different in true view than when in a holder.
With so many cleaned coins out there it really shows that a good population of people who do coins really don’t know what they’re doing. as far as the images from the true view, I have had that issue with them for many years. I’ve had people turn down my coins because they didn’t think it was the one that they had in the photo. It’s pretty sad how these companies have manipulated this simple hobby, and made it difficult. With CAC now grading coins, a kind of puts a middle finger to the other two big ones I think. It really shows how the pissing contest has become so bad.
Thanks for the video. Things are getting out of hand with All the graders.
How do NGC copper coins match up?
Youre right and i think its on purpose so people clean coins to match the image they still get paid and protect their population while u have a cleaned coin😂
Maybe brightening the coins is intended to show details rather than color?
We can come up with all kinds of excuses but there's no denying this makes the coins look different than they are in person. You can see everything you need to see in my images, so there's no reason to brighten or soften to the point the coin has a different patina.
I get what you are saying about the brightening up of the coins. However, I think I know why they are doing it especially to brown/dark brown copper strikes. Even with good lighting the darkness of the coin hides a lot of details in the real images whenever photographed. I think they are brightening up those photos to show the individual bumps, bag marks scratches for anyone to see better when comparing it with the naked eye.
No, they're doing it to all the coins. With all their tech and talent, they can do better.
I always looked at the "true View" concept as their way of showing all of the defects [divots and scratches] on the coin and not as a photograph of how it looks in hand.
But that is not what PCGS claims, and these images do not do that, they're just large enough to see them more, this lighting and toning effect is enhancing the appearance of the coins.
I have been collecting coins for most of my life. There are a couple of things I would like to point out.Two of them are the words "cleaned" and "population."
Cleaned. What is the textbook definition of cleaned? Is there such a thing as a circulated coin that has NOT been cleaned? OK, it is around 1850. I take some coins out of my coin purse. I drop one in the dirt. The very act of picking that coin up and brushing the dirt from it is technically cleaning it. Now, it is 1910. I am sitting at the counter having a cup of tea with a few coins sitting next to my cup. The guy next to me accidentally hits my cup with his elbow and spills some of my tea on the coins. I take a napkin and wipe the tea from them. Again, that is cleaning. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Now, when PCGS defines a coin as having been "cleaned," where is the line drawn between a coin that has been cleaned or not? See my objection to that label? Not your fault, but PCGS's fault.
Second thing is population. There is no less meaningless number on the face of the earth. It implies that a coin is rarer than it really is. The only real meaning population counts have is that this is the number of that coin that has been submitted to that grading company that received that grade.
However, how many coins get cracked open and resubmitted? How many of that particular coin have been submitted to other grading companies? How many companies may have graded the same coin - and potentially more than once? How many of that coin in that grade might be in other collections that have never been submitted for grading? As such, population numbers are totally fictitious and as useless as a bicycle is to a fish.
Sorry. I don't mean to come across as being hostile, but these issues sure do push my buttons.
No, you're absolutely right. The thing with a cleaned coin is that you can always throw it in your pocket for a month or two and let it jingle around until all the cleaning evidence is gone from legitimate wear. If you have a cleaned UNC and keep it in your pocket for 50 years until it's an FR-2, yeah it's not cleaned anymore. That metal is gone. It's become legitimate again. In other words, cleaning can be cleaned off. It's kind of an absurd concept but it's really about if there's evidence of the cleaning or not.
Perhaps they should call it notsotrueview. I agree particularly for the cents where RD, RB, and BN are extremely important.
I like Trueview. I think it clearly shows the wear and damage of the coin better than a typical photo can. However, I don't want to buy most coins unless I can also see an undoctored photo to see the toning and eye-appeal.
It only shows all that because of the file size, you don’t have to use filters or brighter lighting to show that.
In Australia I have some PCGS graded coins, same issues ..l thought it was just me I was dang confused what happened to it 😬
I agree those true view pictures are deceiving. I would be very upset to purchase a coin seeing the true view and the coin shows up so dark.
Great video Daniel
Great video as always. Thanks for sharing. I do agree that it seems they are "Enhanced" pictures. Just doesnt seem right that they do this.
All those true view coins are subjected to special lighting that the dealer or collector will never see in person, because we would have to crack the coin out of the slab to view it like that... I will say, though, when I sold off my collection on E-bay, I took and posted pictures of the actual slabbed coins in their listings, but usually posted the "trueview" image as the main photo, the one that would "catch the eye" in the E-bay search gallery. The "trueview" image is simply the best possible appearance of the coin the collector will ever see, but whenever I see them in E-bay searches, I always look for the personal photos taken by the seller... but if there are none, the seller is doing a disservice to his potential customer.
"The "trueview" image is simply the best possible appearance of the coin the collector will ever see".
I disagree, the images is altered, trueview should be just that, my image is better, it portrays the coin as it appears in hand, that's what trueview is or they need to change the name of their image service.
@@CoinHELPu I've purchased true view coins w/ colorful toning, but in-hand only appears when tilted at various angles under natural light. Perhaps w/ cuprous coins, which can have patinas that darken the surface, PCGS may "brighten" the coin for true view, I've certainly seen it w/ patinated proof cents... still, as I mentioned re: e-bay listings, sellers using true view images should post their own photos.
Trueview should look like the coin.
Maybe a new photograde company is needed to provide a second photo of a coin? Maybe submit the photograde to CAC for a sticker?!😂
Thanks for the video.
Good video Daniel!
Wow, thanks
It's deceiving when over worked with lighting. I do brighten my Lincoln cents but not to the extent of changing the actual color.
i Think they just use very bright lights to take detailed picture because if image is dark it's hard to compare it for authenticity reasons. I doubt they use photoshop to edit images, its to much work. Also it really depends on camera used, maybe its just color profile of camera that had contrast/saturation bumped up, either way i get what you mean, maybe people should write them up and let them know about this problem or at least get official response why they do it.
A common date Peace Dollar in MS-62 is not $85. I can buy 63's for $49 graded.
You didn’t pay attention. I was talking about the whisker jaw.
I'm wondering if the trueview purpose is to let you see the coin in a light that shows all of its goodness and flaws. In other words, it's going to look "better" than if you had it in your hand, but maybe the point is not to make it look better but to actually be able to show you every single detail of the face of that coin..
That is not what PCGS claims about their trueview.
Have you called them abought this ?
I believe the problem here is the color temperature of the light used in the true view photograph and the color temperature used in your video are different. The color temperature in your office is probably from fluorescent lights in the ceiling. This type of light contains more green than direct sunlight. Light from incandescent light bulbs contain a lot of red. Most LED lights designed for household use are balanced with the same amount of red color as incandescent lights giving them a 'warm' look. The light in the true view picture is probably from flash or a steady light source, both of which would should be balanced balanced to resemble sunlight which contains a lot of blue color. I don't think PCGS would deliberately alter the color balance of their pictures. I think comparing the the PCGS pictures with what you see is like comparing apples and oranges. Also LCD monitors, cameras, and other video devices all see color a little differently. To make a more accurate comparison, you would have to duplicate PCGS's lighting and camera setup using all of the same color temperature, resolution, and contrast settings.
EDIT: The color brown is also the most difficult color to reproduce in any kind of photography digital or otherwise.
You’re missing the entire point. I am a professional photographer and I understand the details more than most people. The trueview images are not true view. A professional photographer can make a coin look like anything they want, PCGS makes claims about their images but it’s not true view, they do not look like the coin. It’s that simple.
PCGS has all the equipment and tech and knowledge at their disposal, no excuses for their images not looking like the coin.
PCGS photographer left and new people are taking over. Short time of this problem and it's seems to be now resolved. It's all in the lighting.
Where is your source for this information?
Tru-View seems like an ironic name. Maybe enhanced view would be better. I agree. That’s a problem.
That Morelos coin should never have been put in a PCGS slab. True view or not. Aside from that True View seems ok.
There's no complete agreement on what lighting to consider standard for coin photography. Or for most other photography. It's much more than just color temperature, which is only useful for comparing two different incandescent light sources. Fluorescent lighting uses a blend of fluorescing pigments to produce a spectrum and for common home lighting the consumer can choose between warm white, cool white and daylight as categories that have different balances of the component colors. Halogen lighting gives a spectrum that has fewer peaks, just like incandescent, but commonly with a higher color temperature than regular incandescent. Then there's LED lighting and that's also using fluorescent pigments to blend something that approximately matches a specified standard. The real standard seems like it should be sunlight. But that's highly variable, partially because of the mixing between the direct sunlight and all the indirect light. So, except for tightly controlled conditions for specific purposes there's no such thing as a standard spectrum for artificial lighting.
Now think about how the process of photography is another variable before any adjustments are applied to the recorded image. In film photography the rendition of colors is intentionally different between different categories of film and also by the chemistry used to develop the image. Often people are intending to take pictures of people and want skin tones to be flattering. Most commonly sold consumer films for prints distort colors for that purpose. If a person wants to photograph artwork or flowers and have the colors really po that's a different film. For scientific uses separate exposures through specific filters can give the most accurate information on the colors present. Then we get to digital cameras. As with everything manufactured for real life uses a number of choices are made that involve compromises to have the largest number of happy consumers. The sensors and filters are chosen to give a happy medium for the most common uses by the intended customer base. Recently several high end phones that are promoted to people that are serious about higher quality photography were found to be very poor at reproducing skin tones of darker skinned people. That effect came from algorithmically adjusting the images based on comparing what is in the image to a very large number of stock images and adjusting towards what is commonly in a portrait. Cameras in phones obviously are limited by the sizes of the lenses, the sensor size and how much actual control of aperture and focus and focal length can be crammed into a tiny amount of space. But higher end digital cameras are better, right? Not necessarily. Unless you have everything set for manual adjustment or are willing to work only with the raw images directly choices are being applied automatically to correct for lighting, type of photograph, etc to give the likelihood of being acceptable with the least amount of further adjustments.
All this is to make the point that there are very many variables, with no agreement on what defines an accurate general purpose image. Only by disclosing details about lighting source and placement, camera, lens, distance aperture and shutter speed, film or sensor details can a particular image be anything other than an approximation that fits some persons subjective opinion as being accurate.
And if you want to get further into the weeds your eyes, brain and even mood affect your vision and so does the environment and especially ambient lighting where you are viewing the image.
You're thinking to deep into this, technology today allows for a camera to be set, to actually interpret the scene so it looks exactly as it should once the image is took. Then you have raw settings that allows manual adjustments as well, so there's no excuse in publishing an image that is not trueview when it isn't a trueview of the coin.
@@CoinHELPuWhile it's possible to get pretty close, with extremely expensive technology. I doubt that anyone is spending NASA levels to do so. All affordable cameras are using 4 filters maximum and interpolation algorithms that are based on simplifying assumptions.
I definitely agree that Trueview™ as implemented could be improved greatly. And that Trueview™ is a misleading name for what they are doing.
I'm overthinking only because I used to be paid handsomely to do matching adjustments to get the best agreement between scanning, cameras, displays and printers for commercial imaging for publication.
I've been saying this for years.
Light pollution in the photo booth
Probably a dei issue.
Authenticated and in a case so it cant be harmed. All the rest is fluff. Dont need scratch guard, photos. Stop throwing the slabs at each other! I can take better pictures than grading service provides. Its a racket.
Yeah exactly. I have a DSLR and a ring light. I can take the photos myself and since they're my coins, I have the patience to line everything up just right and edit it to look exactly like it actually does with the same colour in the same brightness and intensity.
This is just one of the reasons I'm single and haven't dated in awhile,lol. Never know what your really gonna get,lol.
Hahahaha getting catfished by PCGS. Thanks for the laugh. It's so true
@TheWinstonDouble " Catfished" by PCGS,, that funny,lol.
Sounds like whomever is doing the pictures for PCGS is the same guy from eBay! 😂
I will guess it is a silver Ike1
really does thats rb worst at best in photo rd and rb for indians changes a lot in many cases
It would make more sense if they called it enhanced view
The term true view is very misleading
(AI) is our future and we must except it. Just be aware what you see may not be what you get.
If you see this comment I still have this quarter that I still don't believe people have given fair look at it to see if it is missing both clads or if it is mixed. I see why a lot of these missing clads like bright copper on one side and I could see why people would take those out of circulation once found. And why this would have been in circulation if not believed was messed up. But people can't automatically think it's environmental damage because of look no more can people think always that a coin missing clad that there would a difference in weight always. Comment back and could even send to you.
What does you comment, have anything to do with this Video on PCGS "TrueView"? Please!
Lighting lighting lighting
It doesn't look like the coin, it doesn't look like the coin, so it's not a trueview of the coin.
SAME WAY THEY SUCKER YOU IN ON E-BAY
Misrepresentation of reality.
They suicht your coin pcgs