"improved" photographs

[Callimachus]

I recently purchased this coin and it came in the mail today.  Looking at the coin I received and comparing it to the seller's photograph, it is obvious that he "improved" his photograph to remove unsightly spots on the face and under the C on the reverse. In 25 or 30 years of collecting ancient coins I have never had this happen before, and can't recall seeing it discussed on this forum either.  I was wondering if this happens to others.

Attached photos:
Seller's original photograph
My photograph today
Close-up of face - seller's photo and my photo side by side

This really does not seem appropriate in the discussion about Fake Coin Reports, etc., so if there is a better place for it, feel free to move it.

[Nemonater]

I think it's simply a difference in lighting and white balance, not necessarily anything intentionally devious. 

[Akropolis]

Get your money back.
PeteB

[Molinari]

I agree with Pete.  The original picture is deceitful even if it is just a different lighting set up (assuming he didn't mention it in the description).

[Pharsalos]

Perhaps the coin has been in the seller's stock for a while, and the photo is an old one? The spots might have 'grown' since the photo was taken. Still, I think you are more than justified in returning it if you are unhappy.

[Callimachus]

Thanks for your replies and opinions.

The red-brown spots on the face are made up of hard material that stands up from the surface.  So I doubt it "grew" there between the time the photo was taken and when I received the coin.  The lighting is the same on both pictures -- from the top. On my photo these brown spots catch the light and the dark area on the bottom is the shadow.  If the seller's photo was not retouched, at least the shadows of the spots ought to show more clearly -- every other surface catches the light, even the small  speck on the upper eye lid shows on both photos.  Missing on the seller's photo too, it the shallow pit between the mouth and the nose.

As for returning it:  It still is a nice coin. And these do not come up for sale very often, even though RIC calls them Common.  The price -- well it was not a bargain, but it was fair.   So I'll think about it.

[n.igma]

In my opinion the noted areas have been altered using the simple "Retouch" tool available in all image processing software packages.

It is nothing to do with lighting or imaging as proven by the green encrustation on the obverse edge at 9h adjacent to the letter S.  

This edge encrustation at 9h remains the same (i.e. unaltered) on both images, indicating that the changes in the images to the other areas of encrustation are the result of image editing/retouching.

The implication is that the dealer has deliberately altered the image to reduce the appearance of unsightly encrustations and in doing so employed a deceptive and misleading image to help sell the coin. Its no different to a deceptive and misleading description.

[okidoki]

Thank you for posting, never seen this being done.

[Nemonater]

In my opinion the noted areas have been altered using the simple "Retouch" tool available in all image processing software packages.

It is nothing to do with lighting or imaging as proven by the green encrustation on the obverse edge at 9h adjacent to the letter S.  

This edge encrustation at 9h remains the same (i.e. unaltered) on both images, indicating that the changes in the images to the other areas of encrustation are the result of image editing/retouching.

The implication is that the dealer has deliberately altered the image to reduce the appearance of unsightly encrustations and in doing so employed a deceptive and misleading image to help sell the coin. Its no different to a deceptive and misleading description.

Why retouch some but not all the imperfections?  The white balance is way off in the first picture which results in the reddish tone that I believe masks the reddish imperfections.

[Jay GT4]

I agree with Nemo, it's simply different lighting.

[Callimachus]

So, I took a better photograph (on the left) and used the "Spot Healing Brush Tool" in PhotoShop Elements to remove the red brown encrustations, and the pit between the mouth and the eye (on the right).  The results are quite similar to the seller's original photo -- the spots are gone, leaving a slight "color stain" where they were.  And it wasn't all that hard to do.

I agree with n.igma above: "In my opinion the noted areas have been altered using the simple "Retouch" tool available in all image processing software packages. "

[quadrans]

So, I took a better photograph (on the left) and used the "Spot Healing Brush Tool" to remove the red brown encrustations, and the pit between the mouth and the eye (on the right).  The results are quite similar to the seller's original photo -- the spots are gone, leaving a slight "color stain" where they were.  And it wasn't all that hard to do.

I agree with n.igma above: "In my opinion the noted areas have been altered using the simple "Retouch" tool available in all image processing software packages. "

 I agree..

 Q.

[n.igma]

....  The results are quite similar to the seller's original photo -- the spots are gone, leaving a slight "color stain" where they were.  

Thanks. Exactly my point. White balance and lighting differences cannot deliver the smoothing and "color stain" observed.  These features are the result of deliberate image retouching, nothing more, nothing less. That is why the relief on the green encrustation at the 9h edge of the obverse remains. It was not subject to image retouching for the simple reason that it does not detract from the overall appearance of the coin, unlike the unsightly, red raised blotch on the cheek. Also another possible consideration in the mind of the dealer is that any retouching of the green edge encrustation would have been more obvious than that on the other areas (cheek and flat reverse field) by virtue of the fact that it would give rise to loss of detail in the immediately adjacent border edge and letter turning the area involved into a noticeable green smear. The latter effect can be seen to some extent on the reverse retouched area where the retouching has clumsily encroached on the arm resulting in loss of detail and smearing of colour, again inexplicable as white balance and lighting effects.

[n.igma]

In my opinion, should you so choose, you have strong grounds for return of the coin and a refund, based on a deceptively manipulated image that significantly misrepresents the actual appearance and state of the coin.

I am with Akropolis on this point

Get your money back.
PeteB

[curtislclay]

The two red deposits on the portrait could probably be removed with a scalpel under magnification, bringing the coin into closer agreement with the dealer's retouched photo!

The two small pits would remain, however: one in the middle of the larger deposit (if that's a real pit in the metal), the second just above and to the right of that deposit.

[Callimachus]

I'll probably end up keeping the coin.  The portraits of Severus Alexander from Antioch have a liveliness about them that those from Rome do not possess. This coin is a good example of that.  The many obverse dies all look like different people -- see my gallery of Elagabalus and Severus ALexander denarii from Antioch ( https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=4550 ) for other examples.

The face of Mars on the reverse is quite charming too -- especially when one realizes how small it is.

The black spot on the reverse was sticky like tar.  So I soaked the end of a wooden toothpick in "Goo-Gone" -- a petroleum based spot remover -- and was able to remove most of it.

I'm surprised no else jumped in with similar stories. That goes to show that the vast majority of dealers are honest and try (with varying degrees of success) to present a true photo of the coins they are trying to sell.  Needless to say, this seller is not one of them and I won't be buying any more coins from him.  Too bad I can't name him here.

Thanks again for your thoughts and comments.

[Pharsalos]

I do have a similar story, as I'm sure other members have. But it is difficult to post these without 'naming and shaming' sellers unfairly. Most dealers have reasonable return policies. If you are unhappy with a coin on arrival, simply return the coin. Like you, I kept my coin because I was still happy with it; but will avoid that seller in the future.

[Lee S]

I absolutely agree the image has been manipulated.... I have done a similar job on a lot of old family photos....
    On a more pleasant note, I have to say that every coin I have purchased from Forum has been better in hand than in the photos in the webshop!!

[Britannicus]

I've been doing professional photo manipulation using Photoshop since 1995, and the dealer photo has definitely been manipulated with the intention to hide the coin's true condition. There's a blurriness to the parts of the image where pixels have been moved around, and I can detect subtle repetitive patterns of pixels that result from sampling. There's no way the differences between the dealer's image and yours — especially the filled-in pit on the cheek — are the result of differences in lighting. Obvious and blatant attempt to deceive here. But I just can't understand why a dealer would want the headache of handling an upset customer and the hassle of accepting a return.

Anyway, I know I'm late to the party in responding to this thread. I am also just reiterating observations others have already pointed out. Still I felt I should say something about it.

I found myself in a similar situation recently. I had bought a coin from a dealer online, and when I received it, it had a pit on the cheek that I hadn't noticed from the dealer photo. When I studied the photo again, I did not think the dealer retouched it, but it had definitely been minimized by the lighting. No mention of it in the dealer's description. either. I decided to keep the coin because nonetheless it is still an outstanding example of the type — I can't find an image of a nicer one — and the price was reasonable. Still, I felt a bit deceived.