| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,720 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
500 Posts |
Call me ignorant, but I had no idea that Heritage allowed sellers to sell off of stock photos. I submitted a question about 4 lots using the same photo and they said that they allow it as long as you are sent the same year, mintmark, grade, certifier as the photo. OUCH! That is JUST WRONG! How can you tell from the listing? They claim you can but I don't see anything - I told them it should be in FLASHING HUGE CAPS! LOL No site should allow stock pics - EVER. If the seller can't be bothered to take pics of each listing - then they shouldn't be allowed to sell. GEESH!     |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1796 Posts |
I have no problem with stock photos for small numismatic items (say, $10 or less) with a guarantee that what I'm buying is in the same grade and overall condition; however, anything more than that and there should be a photo of the actual piece in question, hands down.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
500 Posts |
These aren't <$10 coins. Actually, there is no such thing at Heritage since their fee is a minimum of $14 and their s&h a min of $6.15.
Theoretically, a 1 cent coin would cost you $20.16 to buy there! For a min fee of $20.15, the least they could do is require a TRUE PIC be used - don't ya think?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
500 Posts |
Come to think of it, don't THEY provide the pics anyway? I thought they took pics so they are all the same uniform everything. So it is really Heritage using stock photos? Shame on them!
My guess is this is only for coins valued under some amount - that they don't require the consigner to send to them but allow them to send to the winner/buyer directly so they don't photo them. Still at 20+ minimum it is bad form!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
I guess just add this to the list of why I wont buy from there
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
If there is a stock photo, the description of the lot will read, in part:
The image displayed is a stock photo of an identical coin. The coin you will receive will be the exact same date, grade, mint mark, grading service and quality. Only the serial number will be different.
We use stock photos for a couple of different kinds of items:
1: Older gold coins used as bullion, for example a 1924 Saint in MS62. These are very common coins that people buy largely for gold content rather than numismatic value. This is only for items that are in our inventory; as far as I know, we do not auction this kind of coin with a stock photo at this time, although we used to have a kind of specialty gold auction aimed largely at investors that used them.
2: Certain moderns in very high grade that are essentially indistinguishable from each other. I don't believe that we have anything like this in our web inventory, but you will see these in our Thursday Modern coin auctions. Basically something that would have been slabbed directly out of a government set.
We absolutely understand the value of accurate photos to you as collectors. If you see anything that does not fit one of these two descriptions using a stock photo, please contact me directly at stewarth@ha.com or 800-872-6467 x1355 as soon as you see it, and I will look into it further.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Just for the record, guys, you can take the above post as coming straight from the horse's mouth. Note he used the term "We use...." I don't consider it unreasonable policy.
I've run into one or two stock photos of 1921 Morgans at Heritage - certainly a candidate for the rule above if any coin was - and as a variety searcher it's a bit off-putting. But it's been months since the last one; I believe someone put a bug in their ear about VAMpickers and they did the right thing for their bottom line.
Which is something you should consider about stock images. It's not like Heritage lacks the capacity or skill to create fine images - they're not the equal of the best here at CCF but pretty darn good all the same - and if they choose not to, you can assume that the coin described is just average for the grade. If they felt it looked good enough to bid above bullion you'd best believe they'd have images.
|
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
(1) Yep, it's straight from the horse's mouth. I'm just glad it isn't the other side, although there are those who would disagree. :)
(2) You are quite correct about the bug in the ear. I don't know that it had anything to do with VAMpickers, but I remember very clearly when it happened and we put a stop to it very quickly.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
swhuck, as I'm sure you know a substantial percentage of your Morgan purchasers are buying for the VAM. In the case of 1921's, that's a very small but extremely committed cadre; we're doing what's commonly seen as the Rodney Dangerfield "don't get no respect" thing, but we know it's by far the most fertile waters to fish if you're baiting for a VAM. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I am one that is in the boat of not knowing this was a practice of Heritage, actually I didn't even know they had sellers that could sell from their auctions/site. I always thought the coins had to be in the possession of Heritage and they list it for sale for you. I didn't know you could just send them an image of a coin and them list that (if thats how it works). I do not believe I have ever ran across any "stock" photos but I also can't say that I haven't either since I usually only look at one certain date and MM and its always looking for specific VAM's that I at least like to track prices of (even if I am not in the market of buying). At l;east now I know and will at least keep an eye out for this |
|
New Member
United States
13 Posts |
Bryan1315, I think what you're referring to is our Virtual Bourse. The coins listed there are offered through Heritage by third parties; we don't have possession of them until they sell. I would expect any such coins to have accurate, not stock, photos.
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,720 |
|
Posted 05/25/2012 5:01 pm
