pwcc

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is good to see Brent is posting here. Since he is, I certainly hope he will address concerns previously expressed here and elsewhere (1) that his scans are not realistic depictions of the cards being offered but appear overly bright and (2) that high dollar items in his auctions sometimes appear to have bidders with astounding numbers of retractions to their name and/or very high percentages of bidding activity with him, suggesting (at least to me) the possibllity that they are bidding up their own items and retracting once they find out what the high bidder's max was.

[the-illini]

It is good to see Brent is posting here. Since he is, I certainly hope he will address concerns previously expressed here and elsewhere (1) that his scans are not realistic depictions of the cards being offered but appear overly bright and (2) that high dollar items in his auctions sometimes appear to have bidders with astounding numbers of retractions to their name and/or very high percentages of bidding activity with him, suggesting (at least to me) the possibllity that they are bidding up their own items and retracting once they find out what the high bidder's max was.

Seconded

[calvindog]

I'll put this to the top so it'll make it easier for Brent to click on it when he's looking at the thread he started.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff, it's me and you and a dog named Boo lol.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

...... that his scans are not realistic depictions of the cards being offered but appear overly bright ......

I wear welder's goggles when I bid on his auctions.:cool:

[HRBAKER]

Did I miss anything?

[Sean]

Did I miss anything?

You missed a Brown Old Mill back that ended up selling for $51. :eek:

Oh wait, it wasn't you who missed it. ;)

[Flintboy]

I have used Brent and his services on several auctions. He has always been straight forward and honest. To accuse him of misdeeds without any hard evidence is sorry. Just my 2 cents.....

[Kenny Cole]

I don't think its unfair in the least to ask for an explanation why there are substantially more people who bid and then retract their bids than in practically any other auction with the possible exception of one. What is unfair is the prolonged silence that is met when that question is asked. IMO, the lack of a response is very problematic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kenny there is no need for anyone to be accountable in the age of stuff trumps all. If someone, anyone, has a card on someone's want list in the right holder, it will sell -- possibly for a world record -- whether it's trimmed, otherwise altered, shilled up, whatever. And people will keep coming back for more of the same.

[slipk1068]

The cards are always very bright for sure, and I was under the impression that Brent was on the lookout for shill/retracted bids and policed his auctions to some extent. Thank you Peter for the insight. I will await a response.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[jhs5120]

Brent does a fantastic job - by far the best avenue to buy/sell sports cards.

Jason

[cyseymour]

Kenny there is no need for anyone to be accountable in the age of stuff trumps all. If someone, anyone, has a card on someone's want list in the right holder, it will sell -- possibly for a world record -- whether it's trimmed, otherwise altered, shilled up, whatever. And people will keep coming back for more of the same.

If that's true, then why keep complaining about it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

There is always that last ray of hope that things might change, I suppose.

[the-illini]

If that's true, then why keep complaining about it?

The owner of the auction house posted on here asking for ways to improve his auctions. I think answering these concerns would help improve them. They might get me to bid in his auctions if a card that I wanted appeared there - that wouldn't happen today.

[cyseymour]

The owner of the auction house posted on here asking for ways to improve his auctions. I think answering these concerns would help improve them. They might get me to bid in his auctions if a card that I wanted appeared there - that wouldn't happen today.

I think he just requested feedback on the auction format. He got a little more than he bargained for - which isn't a bad thing, I suppose.

[cyseymour]

There is always that last ray of hope that things might change, I suppose.

All we can do is try, I guess. This image editing thing is going to be a tough one to combat. Namely because image quality can vary by scanner and it is almost impossible to prove wrongdoing.

I would put Just Collect, Sterling, Mile High, and LOTG in the category of auction houses which DON'T image edit. But it is tough if you see a card you want, not to bid anyways.

[calvindog]

The owner of the auction house posted on here asking for ways to improve his auctions.

Yes, cleaning up any fraud in his auctions might be the best way to improve them.

[Runscott]

Yes, cleaning up any fraud in his auctions might be the best way to improve them.

+1

Some of the 'turn a blind eye' comments are astounding.

[ullmandds]

it seems that fraud/wrongdoing only gets admitted...and under duress...when the gov't comes knocking!

[jhs5120]

What is the solution?

Seriously, this question is always asked in these "witch-hunt" threads, but it is never answered. The silence is deafening.

Brent, at one point your auction pictures looked like someone was tripping on acid and painted a baseball card with an array of highlighters. It's okay to adjust the contrast a little, but you went over board in the past. I think your pictures now look much more realistic and you found an appropriate middle-ground; thank you for listening to our advice.

Also, several auctions appear shilled. I personally don't think there is a solution to this epidemic, but DON'T WORRY, ullmandds, Runscott, Peter_Spaeth and the-illini all have viable solutions for you!

Lets hear it.

[Leon]

Brent (hi Brent) is great to work with as an advertiser. He seems like a nice guy too.
I have bid and won nice cards in his auctions and will continue. That being said, I hope he will consider banning ebayers from his auctions with inordinate amounts of bid retractions. More than about 2 per year is probably unacceptable. So there is at least part of a solution, Pete and Jason.....

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's possible to monitor auctions over a certain threshold to check for consignors bidding up their own items, or suspicious patterns of bidding by bidders with huge numbers of retractions in their recent history. I would start there.

[chaddurbin]

Brent (hi Brent) is great to work with as an advertiser. He seems like a nice guy too.
I have bid and won nice cards in his auctions and will continue. That being said, I hope he will consider banning ebayers from his auctions with inordinate amounts of bid retractions. More than about 2 per year is probably unacceptable. So there is at least part of a solution, Pete and Jason.....

wouldn't this hurt some of these ebay consignment places? one of the advantages of being a consignor there is how easy it is to shill up your items.

[Leon]

wouldn't this hurt some of these ebay consignment places? one of the advantages of being a consignor there is how easy it is to shill up your items.

I don't think it is ever bad to get rid of fraud. Maybe in the short run the numbers will go down a little bit, but in the long run Karma is a MOFO.....just my opinion....

[jhs5120]

I think it's possible to monitor auctions over a certain threshold to check for consignors bidding up their own items, or suspicious patterns of bidding by bidders with huge numbers of retractions in their recent history. I would start there.

You think it's possible?

You have been complaining about Brent since yesterday on this thread and you're uncertain if there is even a solution to te issue you are protesting?

But okay, your solution is we check the bidding activity on items above a certain threshold for consignors bidding on their own items. That's a start.

Brent currently has 11,318 completed listings on his ebay account spanning 3 auctions. What are we making the threshold? How about $250. I certainly would be sour if I was bid up on a $250 card. There are 2,219 listings above $250. Since each listing started at $.99 they all had anywhere from 20 to 30 bids (sometimes more) and usually around 10 unique bidders. I timed myself looking at each bidder on a single item to determin how many bid retractions they have had and what there bidding pattern was - it took me 2 minutes and 37 seconds. In the end, I do not believe it was shilled. It would take me over 96 hours to go through each auction above our threshold and in the end we would only have a handful of "suspicions". Of course, it would take me much longer to some how cross reference each bidding ID with the consignors information (which isn't possible) and after all that we were able to block MAYBE a dozen accounts.

Now, we're forgetting that the consignor may snipe his auction (so there's nothing we can do about that) and the consignor may create a new account not under his name (which would also make things difficult).

Please, someone walk us through a solution that would be able to solve this whole ordeal.

[AustinMike]

JHS5120 - I like your solution. Keep head buried in sand, claim it can't be fixed, and move on. With that attitude, I guess I can safely assume that you don't bother to ever lock your home or car doors. After all, burglaries happen and you can't stop them, right? So why bother to lock or even close your doors?

Leon had a great solution ... don't allow anyone with 2 or more bid retractions to bid on the auctions. You didn't address that.

How about, don't let anyone with an ebay account created when the card was consigned, or after, bid on the card without contacting the consignment house? That would prevent the consignor from creating a new account simply to bid on his card.

And I'm sure there are other ways to combat the problem other than throwing one's hands in the air and claiming it can't be done.

[jhs5120]

Leon had a great solution ... don't allow anyone with 2 or more bid retractions to bid on the auctions. You didn't address that.

I did address it. It would take approximately 96 hours to look at the amount of bid retractions for every bidder on every auction (with a threshold above $250). Which is only covering 20% of PWCC's auction. I think we can both agree that isn't a solution.

How about, don't let anyone with an ebay account created when the card was consigned, or after, bid on the card without contacting the consignment house? That would prevent the consignor from creating a new account simply to bid on his card.

It would take even longer to look up every account creation date and then cross-reference that to when the consignment was received and that would end up being a purely speculative process. Brent might as well quit auctioning items and just work full time trying to nab shillers.

I'm sure there are other ways to combat the problem other than throwing one's hands in the air and claiming it can't be done.

I agree.

Some of the greatest minds in the hobby frequent this board, I am genuinly interested in hearing a viable solution to the problem.

If we're going to sit at our computers and bash a small business owner, how about we put in a little bit of thought and figure out a solution.

[calvindog]

Jason, why can't Brent tell us his thoughts on these issues instead of you? Doesn't he have more invested in concerns about the fraud that might be occurring in his auctions than you do?

And why are we responsible for cleaning up his auctions? I wasn't aware of that responsibility. I thought our responsibility started and ended with the rules of his auction.

[nolemmings]

If it takes 96 man-hours to check for retracting bidders, then hire help to do just that. As the problem is attacked it should start to get under control, with bid retractors blocked. As for new accounts being prohibited as potential shills, you can simply deny bidders with less than 5 or 10 feedback from bidding unless they get approval–no need to check account creation dates.

And no one said you have to run 12,000 auctions at a time. Turning away consignors (or postponing their orders) may seem like anathema, but the excuse of “I’m making too much money to care how I make it” is a non-starter with me. SHOW SOME INITIATIVE.

[jhs5120]

Jason, why can't Brent tell us his thoughts on these issues instead of you?

I'm not the person to ask that question to.

Doesn't he have more invested in concerns about the fraud that might be occurring in his auctions than you do?

Yes, I would love to hear his take on the whole issue.

And why are we responsible for cleaning up his auctions? I wasn't aware of that responsibility.

If a person comes onto a public forum and "outs" the owner of an auction house for fraudulent activity that is beyond his control, he certainly has the responsibility to offer a solution.

I thought our responsibility started and ended with the rules of his auction.

The rules of Brents auction explicitly forbids the act of shill bidding. If it is OUR responsibility to adhere to these rules then how can we blame Brent for the people who do not listen?

Per PWCC:

The sportscard hobby hinges on the honesty and integrity of the seller. Too often we hear of fraud and other manipulation that serves to undermine the integrity of our hobby. Bidders deserve better, where bidding is 100% legitimate and uninfluenced by manipulations such as fraudulent (shill) bidding by the auction house, consignors, friends of consignors, friends of the auction house, or anyone else who participates insincerely with the sole intention of manipulating the sale price. We do NOT permit shill bidding of any kind and actively police our auctions to prevent such acts from occurring. If we learn that a bidder is questionable, we take action in the form of canceling the bid and blocking a bidder from participating in future auctions.

To preserve the integrity of the bidding process, we believe that eBay is the best forum to host auctions due to the privacy of the eBay platform. Unlike proprietary auction software, eBay’s platform is equally transparent to both the buyer and the seller. We don’t know the value of a bidder’s max bid, nor do our consignors, or anyone else. We've spent the last 15 years on eBay (since 1998) working to garner the trust of collectors and the hobby at large. Rest assured that you can trust our service and can participate in our auctions with the confidence that integrity is our #1 priority.

[steve B]

As a technical issue any seller who does large volume is in a very bad spot.

As JHS said, it's a lot of hours if you do even a basic search for retractions manually. 96 hours is more than two full weeks of labor just to check something basic. Or at $7 an hour $672. Maybe there's enough in the sellers cut to support that, maybe not. Plus those three full time people will need computers to work with.

And it's fairly easy to beat. Just have multiple accounts, one gets banned, but finds the max bids (But not snipes) Another snipes and that's the shill.

Oh yeah, if it takes 96 hours to check bid history, how long will it take to then cancel bids and ban sellers? Figure at least as long. So double your labor cost.

And that still won't really fix it.
say a bidder with 5 retractions bids on 10 items inside the last few seconds and wins them all.
Sure, you can cancel the sale for not following the auction rules and make second chance offers. But that looks fishy as well doesn't it? (Of course it does, we've all discussed it before)


So the solution needs to be a computerized solution.
I don't think Ebay has a feature to proactively block based on retractions.
So whoever wants to do it will have to come up with their own software.
I believe Ebay can be accessed automatically for the info.
That just leaves writing that program, and making adjustments whenever Ebay decides to make a change behind the scenes.

Have you seen what a really good programmer costs?

Ok, now do the math and figure it out from a purely business perspective. Purely business. Will those things add enough to the bottom line to even cover costs? Maybe it will. Maybe more people would bid or would bid more if they knew almost for sure they wouldn't be shilled.
But you need a lot of sales to cover that. If the consignment fee is 20% you need an extra 3300 a week ( 174720 a year plus since I haven't figured fica etc into labor costs)at the absolute minimum. If you're talking about a computer programmer it's more like 300000 to cover a cheap one.(figuring 60K/year, not unusual for a fresh college grad in programming Good experienced ones cost more, much more but may be faster)

Now wait for it......
A month in you get a C+D letter from Ebay because they really don't want you doing that with their customer data. Or maybe they just want a huge license fee. patent trolls start at around 50K, I'm guessing Ebay would want more.

And there goes a few thousand in development costs. Unless it's actually a patent suit, then it's development costs plus a stack of cash.
(I met someone who wrote their own bidding software that accessed customer data and bids to automate sniping within the last second. They got just such a letter from ebay)


Anyone up for it? Someone want to bankroll the project as a bit of commercial software? I know a few people who could get it done.

Anyone want to try to present it on shark tank?

Steve Birmingham

[Peter_Spaeth]

Doug Allen had a Code of Conduct too. See indictment.

[tschock]

The rules of Brents auction explicitly forbids the act of shill bidding. If it is OUR responsibility to adhere to these rules then how can we blame Brent for the people who do not listen?

Per PWCC:

The sportscard hobby hinges on the honesty and integrity of the seller. Too often we hear of fraud and other manipulation that serves to undermine the integrity of our hobby. Bidders deserve better, where bidding is 100% legitimate and uninfluenced by manipulations such as fraudulent (shill) bidding by the auction house, consignors, friends of consignors, friends of the auction house, or anyone else who participates insincerely with the sole intention of manipulating the sale price. We do NOT permit shill bidding of any kind and actively police our auctions to prevent such acts from occurring. If we learn that a bidder is questionable, we take action in the form of canceling the bid and blocking a bidder from participating in future auctions.

To preserve the integrity of the bidding process, we believe that eBay is the best forum to host auctions due to the privacy of the eBay platform. Unlike proprietary auction software, eBay’s platform is equally transparent to both the buyer and the seller. We don’t know the value of a bidder’s max bid, nor do our consignors, or anyone else. We've spent the last 15 years on eBay (since 1998) working to garner the trust of collectors and the hobby at large. Rest assured that you can trust our service and can participate in our auctions with the confidence that integrity is our #1 priority.

Respectfully, I have to question... "Where have you been?" What you are posting here simply is making Peter and Jeff's point (among others) for them.

This HAS been brought forward in the past and it goes UNANSWERED. It has been brought up again explicitly because Brent has posted to the forum. Peter simply was asking for Brent's response to this.

Either they are doing what they say they are doing (see bold and highlighted) or they are not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

FYI it took me about three minutes to find five (or maybe it was more) suspicious bidders who should be investigated. The stats people throw up in an effort to make this seem more overwhelming than putting a man on the moon don't impress me much.

[tschock]

I don't think Ebay has a feature to proactively block based on retractions. - Steve Birmingham

You are correct. They do not.

This whole situation could be easily solved by ebay allowing/exposing the bid retraction number on their "excluded sellers" option list. Similar to they way they allow you to set minimum feedback requirements for bidders who you can prohibit from bidding.

[jhs5120]

FYI it took me about three minutes to find five (or maybe it was more) suspicious bidders who should be investigated. The stats people throw up in an effort to make this seem more overwhelming than putting a man on the moon don't impress me much.

What type of "investigation" do you wish Brent would conduct on these 5 suspicious bidders?

[glchen]

I agree, I think Brent is in a bad spot because of volume. (Same with other large ebay consignors like Probstein.) However, I do think there are some solutions.

The most obvious would be if ebay would actually get off their butt and help out here. First, ebay can make the bidding id's public. Then everyone can see the actual bidding id's. Next, beside the bidding id in the bidding history, ebay can place the location (City/State) of the bidder. Therefore, if a bidder create fake id's, you can see it b/c of the location of the bidder. However, how about those bidders who fake their location? You can require that the location be mapped to a confirmed shipping address from paypal. In addition, ebay can require that all bidders have paypal accounts. (or if ebay does not, PWCC can in their auctions require that all bidders have valid paypal accounts.) In their paypal accounts, ebay/paypal can require that all accounts have confirmed bank accounts linked to them. This way, it won't be as easy for bidders to create fake accounts, and ebay/paypal can make sure that the account name on the bank account matches the account name on the ebay account along w/ the location. This way there would be more transparency for potential bidders to see what's going on in the bidding history for an auction, and ebay would be able to catch shill bidding much easier. Even if someone is having a friend bid for them, it would be much more difficult if they're near the same location. Obviously, there would still be loopholes if the friend or dealer friend is in a different state.

Another thing that ebay can add is as part of the Buyer Requirements, add a requirement for bidding retractions where if a buyer has a certain number of retractions in the last year, prevent them from bidding in the auction. Then sellers can use this auction to help prevent shilling.

Everything I mentioned is pretty much for ebay. Obviously with so many auctions, it's tough for PWCC to police every one of them. However, perhaps they could participate in some of the threads more openly, and post the actual bidding history of auctions when asked. Basically if certain auctions were questioned, they could investigate those auctions openly as needed, which would help ensure the public that no funny business were going on.

[cyseymour]

Ebay's auction system was never designed for the type of consignments that are taking place. It was originally designed so that people could sell their own items. It worked well for a while, although there was plenty of fakes and scams. Yet now we have the rampant shill bidding as consigners bid up their own items.

You have sellers such as PWCC, Probstein, Just Collect, etc, and then you have the auction houses. Either way, you are not immune to shill bidding - from the consigners on the ebay auction, or with the auction house itself. Even if the auction house is not shill bidding, a consigner could have a friend bid on the card (although there often is no issue with retractions).

Inevitably, everyone is exposed to fraud and dishonesty. PWCC/Prob/JC need to do a better job of monitoring their auctions, but an even greater problem is the image editing. This is the new steroids for baseball cards vis-a-vis the auction houses. Shill bidding has become too risky in the wake of the Mastro arrests, so image editing is the new way to inflate prices.

[Leon]

The part of the solution I was talking about takes about 3 seconds. Check someone's bid history, if more than 2 retractions a year, ban them. I don't give a rat's ass where they did the retractions. I am all inclusive of any ebay auction. That is a workable partial solution.

If we found a cure for breast cancer would we take it now or wait until all cancer is curable?

[tschock]

What type of "investigation" do you wish Brent would conduct on these 5 suspicious bidders?

Jeez, you posted this yourself.

If we learn that a bidder is questionable, we take action in the form of canceling the bid and blocking a bidder from participating in future auctions.

[calvindog]

Time spent by potential victims of fraud in PWCC auctions discussing solutions to fraud = much

Time spent by owner of PWCC auctions discussing solutions to fraud = 0

[CaramelMan]

No Auction house will stop Shill bidding!

IT MAKES THEM MONEY to have shill bids

IT COSTS THEM MONEY to Police it....

sorry folks...it will never stop....

EBAY LOVES SHILL BIDDING....they have meetings every month to talk about how they can further HIDE shill bidding for their customers...

its like beating a dead horse....IT WILL NEVER END...part of buying something over the computer....

[glchen]

No Auction house will stop Shill bidding!

IT MAKES THEM MONEY to have shill bids

IT COSTS THEM MONEY to Police it....

sorry folks...it will never stop....

EBAY LOVES SHILL BIDDING....they have meetings every month to talk about how they can further HIDE shill bidding for their customers...

its like beating a dead horse....IT WILL NEVER END...part of buying something over the computer....

This argument really reminds me of steroids in baseball...

The FANS love the home runs and offense!
The OWNERS love increased gate revenue and higher TV contracts!
The PLAYERS love their names in the record books and the higher salaries from increased revenue!

The "only" people who get hurt are the players who don't want to take steroids but find that they are not able to get a job in MLB b/c of all of the steroid users producing better numbers.

It's the same thing in this situation. Consignors, even honest ones, will flock to those auction houses that seem to bring the highest prices. So the honest auctioneers will tend to get less consignments. Those consignors who don't shill will get lower prices on their consignments, which may be flipped by consignors who do shill, inflating the VCP average. Then honest buyers see these average selling prices and think that these are the prices they can sell their cards in the future, but it's all a mirage created by this shilling.

[CaramelMan]

This argument really reminds me of steroids in baseball...

The FANS love the home runs and offense!
The OWNERS love increased gate revenue and higher TV contracts!
The PLAYERS love their names in the record books and the higher salaries from increased revenue!

The "only" people who get hurt are the players who don't want to take steroids but find that they are not able to get a job in MLB b/c of all of the steroid users producing better numbers.

It's the same thing in this situation. Consignors, even honest ones, will flock to those auction houses that seem to bring the highest prices. So the honest auctioneers will tend to get less consignments. Those consignors who don't shill will get lower prices on their consignments, which may be flipped by consignors who do shill, inflating the VCP average. Then honest buyers see these average selling prices and think that these are the prices they can sell their cards in the future, but it's all a mirage created by this shilling.

not saying I agree with shilling..its very bad ..BUT and this is a big BUT:

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO STOP....and a big incentive to continue to shill...

IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP IT, that is the problem..

how many theads has Probstein been subject of for letting shill bidders consign with him...its never ending and he has no incentive to stop it!

even when they are caught red handed (as been shown here plenty of times) THEY DONT STOP.....

actually I think they get more brazen AFTER the get caught and have no repercussions....

[the-illini]

Time spent by owner of PWCC auctions discussing solutions to fraud = 0



The above is significantly less than the time spent by owner on this forum soliciting feedback to help improve his bottom line.

[Iron Horse]

If a few of them are fined & jailed then that would be a BIG incentive to stop. Until that time...let the shilling roll. Seriously, unless arrests and/or fines are presented this will likely not end.

[Leon]

not saying I agree with shilling..its very bad ..BUT and this is a big BUT:

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO STOP....and a big incentive to continue to shill...

IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP IT, that is the problem..

how many theads has Probstein been subject of for letting shill bidders consign with him...its never ending and he has no incentive to stop it!

even when they are caught red handed (as been shown here plenty of times) THEY DONT STOP.....

actually I think they get more brazen AFTER the get caught and have no repercussions....

First of all, be careful of our full name policy. Secondly, just curious who has been caught shill bidding and didn't stop or got more brazen? The incentive to stop is prison.

[D. Bergin]

You cannot police every auction of every bidder and weed out who is a serial retractor or not.

It really doesn't matter anymore. It's not just shillers who are doing this, it's bidders who have decided this is a great bidding strategy for them to suss out the high bid.

You can however, very easily weed out the bidders who are placing retractions in YOUR auctions. Every time somebody retracts a bid in one of your auctions, you receive an e-mail from Ebay telling you this. It's not rocket science and it's not time consuming. A couple circumstances like this happening in YOUR auctions, you do a little investigating, you confront the bidder with a message, and then you cut the bidder off at the knees or find out he has a tremendously valid reason for doing what he did.

[Wahoowa]

The above is significantly less than the time spent by owner on this forum soliciting feedback to help improve his bottom line.

Just to clarify, Brent is soliciting feedback because I had reached out to him expressing my concerns with the new mid-day closing time. Sure it helps his bottom line but he seemed genuinely interested in addressing my concerns as a buyer/consignor.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Strictly IMO and just a thought, one easy way to eliminate the shilling (or the potential of shilling)in these type of traditional auctions, save the man hours of attempting to police it, and still attempt to maximize the profit of the consignor would be to use a reverse auction format via BINs on ebay.

[Leon]

You cannot police every auction of every bidder and weed out who is a serial retractor or not.

It really doesn't matter anymore. It's not just shillers who are doing this, it's bidders who have decided this is a great bidding strategy for them to suss out the high bid.

You can however, very easily weed out the bidders who are placing retractions in YOUR auctions. Every time somebody retracts a bid in one of your auctions, you receive an e-mail from Ebay telling you this. It's not rocket science and it's not time consuming. A couple circumstances like this happening in YOUR auctions, you do a little investigating, you confront the bidder with a message, and then you cut the bidder off at the knees or find out he has a tremendously valid reason for doing what he did.

I was only referring to people bidding in his auctions.....but not where they had done it previously. If they retracted 50 bids, and then bid in his auction and canceled it, ban them. There aren't millions of people doing this. After the first 20-30 I am going to guess you have most of the major bid retractors bidding in your auctions banned and taken care of. Again, it's one small step but one in the right direction, imo. I am not talking about policing all of ebay, only one's own auctions...and then only with major bid retractors. This wouldn't be that difficult.

[thecatspajamas]

You can however, very easily weed out the bidders who are placing retractions in YOUR auctions. Every time somebody retracts a bid in one of your auctions, you receive an e-mail from Ebay telling you this. It's not rocket science and it's not time consuming. A couple circumstances like this happening in YOUR auctions, you do a little investigating, you confront the bidder with a message, and then you cut the bidder off at the knees or find out he has a tremendously valid reason for doing what he did.

Where can I turn on this eBay automatic notice of someone retracting a bid in my auction? I haven't found any way to turn on or opt in for such a notification.

I say this in all sincerity, because I was just about to suggest that the easiest way for eBay to police this kind of thing would be to let the seller know every time it happens. Get 30 notices in a day of the same guy bidding and retracting in your auction, and you're bound to notice them clogging up your inbox, no matter how many listings you have. That also saves you the trouble of having to suss out who the serial retractors are. All you have to do is look for the recurring eBay ID's in your inbox, and act accordingly to ban those from bidding on your auctions.

I've never found a way to set up such notifications though. I don't sell at near the level of pwcc, but I know for a fact that I have had retractions on my auctions in the past where I wasn't notified (I only noticed because an item that was at the top of the list in number of bids dropped down when I refreshed the screen, without any other bids having come in. I confirmed it by checking the bid history, but wouldn't have thought to do so otherwise).

[steve B]

FYI it took me about three minutes to find five (or maybe it was more) suspicious bidders who should be investigated. The stats people throw up in an effort to make this seem more overwhelming than putting a man on the moon don't impress me much.



How?

I decided to try it myself, looked at about 25 auctions bid history. Only checked patterns that looked odd.

That took roughly 13 minutes.

I did find three bidders I thought were a bit suspect, and two maybes.

But over a couple thousand auctions the hours spent would be close to what Jason had. And call it statistics, but the costs I figured would be the costs no matter what you call them. Checking requires labor, those workers need to be paid.

I do agree that some effort would weed out the most obvious problem bidders.

I'm not so sure that would reduce the overall problem since those bidders might be replaced with new problem bidders.

And I have doubts that such light scrutiny would satisfy you.
If a big consigner came on once a month and said he'd spent a half hour and banned 5 people would you be ok with that? Or would you demand that he look into every bidder.
If he looked into every bidder on items over 250 would that be ok, or should it be every bidder on every item?

And what's the threshold for "suspect" a couple bid retractions? A certain pattern? Someone intent on shilling will work around almost any detection method. (See also computer anti-virus programming. They're written nearly as fast as the AV can be adjusted to block them)

I agree shilling is bad, and that some steps should be taken. Persoanlly I'd be happy with any genuine effort by any of the large consignment companies.

But it does have to be tempered with a bit of realism. Not all suspect patterns are shills. Not all shills can or will be caught. It doesn't mean not trying.

Ebay allowing people with too many retractions to be blocked would be a very big help. And for Ebay it wouldn't be that hard or expensive. (Not counting the lost fees from shilled items.) They already have the programmers on the payroll.

So far no takers on bankrolling a shiller detection program..........Not that I'm expecting any.

Steve B

[tschock]

I think one of the things that many agree with is that numerous bid retractions could a sign of shilling. If nothing else, they are definitely a sign of a "suspect buyer".

So.... it's time to put the myth to bed on how "time intensive" or "expensive" it is to monitor and act on possible shill bidders on ebay. Submitted for your approval...

Since my last post (less than 2 hours ago), I downloaded a FREE web crawler and configured it to show me a list of all the PWCC ebay auctions that completed in the last 7 days, view ALL the bidders on those auctions, and extract the number of bid retractions EACH bidder had for the past 6 months. This is under the Bid Extract column at the bottom. Each line in the bottom section is a list of the bid retractions in the last 6 months and the URL to a SPECIFIC buyer. There could be duplicates, but this could be filtered out.

This was a a POC (proof of concept) approach from myself, and while having some background working with computers, I have NO experience with web crawlers. That is why the output is somewhat "dirty" but could be beefed up and made pretty with probably a little more effort. Obviously from my lousy jpg I'm not one to be doing scan enhancements. :)

However the point is this: It is NOT difficult NOR expensive for someone selling on ebay to monitor and trace back bid retractions.

Note: I am NOT saying that PWCC knows about this or is involved with this or doesn't care. It was simply an exercise to point out how simple and cheap this is to do, if one has the desire to do so.

[nsaddict]

Does this one qualify??



http://tinyurl.com/k3d63f8

same dude..........underbidder

http://tinyurl.com/lkvfruk

[CobbvLajoie1910]

Crickets.

[painthistorian]

RE: bid retractions...

We do get a few bid retractions each week we hold an e bay auction, usually due to buyer's remorse in which they will click one of four reasons that e bay allows, VERY RARELY is it from the same bidder constantly. We will not tolerate this if it happens over and over again(3 x MAX).

The most common is bid wrong amount, and if the amount bid is NOT rebid correctly, we assume the bidder is reneging. If cancelled within 24 hours of the lot closing, we will block the bidder. Notification is sent by e bay for every retraction and can be seen when you click bids on my e bay. If the bidder has not asked us to cancel his bid for whatever reason, and if he feels it is his right to withdraw a bid after days of retraction, forget it, we will not allow this bidder to bid again. It is very simple to resolve, e bay does send notification in each retraction situation. Hopefully PWCC will do the same so that it does not cause him or the legit bidders heartache, and these reneging bidders(in most cases) should be banned from bidding in the future.

Once in a while, a bidder that retracts does so for personal reasons beyond their control(such as illness) however an e mail explanation is proper and a courtesy and should be done for everybody's sake. It is not fair to bidders or sellers either way...e bay is already WAY too slanted in buyer protection in certain instances.

[Runscott]

There isn't any excuse for allowing what appears to be fraudulent bidding. If you want to avoid being questioned about possible shilling, etc., then you do periodic spot-checks and ban the offenders. Unless it's part of your business plan, in which case you just stick with it, ignoring those who can't do jack (us) until you get caught by someone who actually can put you in the clink. Then you find religion, do your time and come back with an improved plan.

[slipk1068]

Does this one qualify??



http://tinyurl.com/k3d63f8

same dude..........underbidder

http://tinyurl.com/lkvfruk

That 1 is enough proof for me. Also someone in that auction with 0 feedback bidding 12k with plenty of time left in the auction to retract the bid and someone with 14 feedback and 4 bid retractions in the last 6 months bidding 11k plus.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[Peter_Spaeth]

Does this one qualify??



http://tinyurl.com/k3d63f8

same dude..........underbidder

http://tinyurl.com/lkvfruk

That's another thing one sees spending a few minutes clicking through the high dollar auctions -- same bidders with mega retractions or high percentage with seller, bidding on disparate items that seemingly one person would not collect. Here, the Mantle rookie and a Cabrera autograph. That is imprecise and circumstantial, of course, but noticed it many times.

[drcy]

The only way to prevent hard to detect crimes is to have the worst possible punishment when caught. I suggest execution by a razor toothed sloth, starting from the feet up.

In real life, there is a poisonous boa, but it doesn't squirt the poison from it's teeth as with vipers. Rather, it holds its victim still, spits the poison on the victim then chews it in.

Or as was Woody Allen's punishment in prison in Take the Money and Run: 7 days locked in a sweat box with an insurance salesman.

[cincyredlegs]

People are shilling auctions; not just Probstein or PWCC. I know it, you know, even Rick and Brent know it. Here is my take:

-People continue to go to Probstein and PWCC because they are getting top dollar.

-Shilling drives up the prices so the seller maximizes his profits as well as Probstein and PWCC.

-Probstein and PWCC are doing nothing illegal (as long as they are not the ones shilling).

-So if Rick and Brent were to REALLY get tough and police it, what would it do to their business? Would they start to lose customers because they were not getting top dollar anymore?

So what is their vested interest in doing anything about it?

Funny thing is I know a guy who won his own auction that he consigned to Rick, paid for it, Rick mailed the card back to him then he sent back to Rick to re-list.

Mark

[Peter_Spaeth]

People are shilling auctions; not just Probstein or PWCC. I know it, you know, even Rick and Brent know it. Here is my take:

-People continue to go to Probstein and PWCC because they are getting top dollar.

-Shilling drives up the prices so the seller maximizes his profits as well as Probstein and PWCC.

-Probstein and PWCC are doing nothing illegal (as long as they are not the ones shilling).

-So if Rick and Brent were to REALLY get tough and police it, what would it do to their business? Would they start to lose customers because they were not getting top dollar anymore?


So what is their vested interest in doing anything about it?

Funny thing is I know a guy who won his own auction that he consigned to Rick, paid for it, Rick mailed the card back to him then he sent back to Rick to re-list.

Mark

And yet you have people like Larry (painthistorian) who care about their integrity and their buyers, who take measures such as the ones he outlined above to stop these practices.

[Iron Horse]

The only way this will come to an end at least on eBay it would be by eBay somehow coming up with a system that if you retract bids more then once or twice in a month it locks you out for 30 days.

[thecatspajamas]

Given eBay's history of "solving" problems with cover-ups and changes that really don't help, I can pretty much guarantee that before they do anything like this or any other elaborate programming solutions that anyone has suggested, they will simply stop showing the retracted bid count. Then nobody will know which listings to gripe about (at least, not with any certainty). No griping = problem solved from eBay's standpoint. ;)

Still trying to figure out how to get notification of someone retracting a bid on one of my auctions. I get them when someone withdraws a Best Offer, but not for retracted bids.

[D. Bergin]

Where can I turn on this eBay automatic notice of someone retracting a bid in my auction? I haven't found any way to turn on or opt in for such a notification.

I say this in all sincerity, because I was just about to suggest that the easiest way for eBay to police this kind of thing would be to let the seller know every time it happens. Get 30 notices in a day of the same guy bidding and retracting in your auction, and you're bound to notice them clogging up your inbox, no matter how many listings you have. That also saves you the trouble of having to suss out who the serial retractors are. All you have to do is look for the recurring eBay ID's in your inbox, and act accordingly to ban those from bidding on your auctions.

I've never found a way to set up such notifications though. I don't sell at near the level of pwcc, but I know for a fact that I have had retractions on my auctions in the past where I wasn't notified (I only noticed because an item that was at the top of the list in number of bids dropped down when I refreshed the screen, without any other bids having come in. I confirmed it by checking the bid history, but wouldn't have thought to do so otherwise).


I always assumed it's a default setting because I've always received an e-mail when somebody retracts a bid in one of my auctions. I didn't realize others were not getting retraction notices.

I'm guessing it may be more an e-mail client setting then an Ebay setting. Maybe going to the spam box for some reason.

[D. Bergin]

I was only referring to people bidding in his auctions.....but not where they had done it previously. If they retracted 50 bids, and then bid in his auction and canceled it, ban them. There aren't millions of people doing this. After the first 20-30 I am going to guess you have most of the major bid retractors bidding in your auctions banned and taken care of. Again, it's one small step but one in the right direction, imo. I am not talking about policing all of ebay, only one's own auctions...and then only with major bid retractors. This wouldn't be that difficult.


I think we are saying the same thing Leon.

[tschock]

Given eBay's history of "solving" problems with cover-ups and changes that really don't help, I can pretty much guarantee that before they do anything like this or any other elaborate programming solutions that anyone has suggested, they will simply stop showing the retracted bid count.

-1 ... only because I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. :(

[slipk1068]

I expect the auction houses to at least do the bare minimum to protect its customers.

A previous post shows a Mantle card that went for $12,100. The bid history on that card is sickening.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[CaramelMan]

The only way this will come to an end at least on eBay it would be by eBay somehow coming up with a system that if you retract bids more then once or twice in a month it locks you out for 30 days.

ding ding..we have a winner! so easy to enact!

but why would ebay do that? the more shill bids, the more money for them!

[markf31]

In shill bidding situations like this, PWCC is the account/ebay user who's ass is on the line ultimately so we can all do our best as legitimate buyers/bidders to force the issue and attack this problem.

Its been mentioned multiple times that these consignment sellers have thousands of listings going on simultaneously. If we take time to report those auction listings we find that are being shilled (using the link included in every listing to "report a listing") Ebay should begin to put the heat on those particular sellers. In Ebay's policies they mention they will begin to notify the seller of shilling in their listings and if enough reports/multiple reports are made regarding a particular seller that Ebay could restrict and/or suspend the sellers account.

Maybe when Ebay begins to receive multiple shilling reports over and over again about consignment sellers like PWCC this will force PWCC themselves to become more vigilant in eliminating shilling on their listings because if they don't, it's their ass and their business on the line.

[markf31]

The rules of Brents auction explicitly forbids the act of shill bidding. If it is OUR responsibility to adhere to these rules then how can we blame Brent for the people who do not listen?

Per PWCC:

The sportscard hobby hinges on the honesty and integrity of the seller. Too often we hear of fraud and other manipulation that serves to undermine the integrity of our hobby. Bidders deserve better, where bidding is 100% legitimate and uninfluenced by manipulations such as fraudulent (shill) bidding by the auction house, consignors, friends of consignors, friends of the auction house, or anyone else who participates insincerely with the sole intention of manipulating the sale price. We do NOT permit shill bidding of any kind and actively police our auctions to prevent such acts from occurring. If we learn that a bidder is questionable, we take action in the form of canceling the bid and blocking a bidder from participating in future auctions.

To preserve the integrity of the bidding process, we believe that eBay is the best forum to host auctions due to the privacy of the eBay platform. Unlike proprietary auction software, eBay’s platform is equally transparent to both the buyer and the seller. We don’t know the value of a bidder’s max bid, nor do our consignors, or anyone else. We've spent the last 15 years on eBay (since 1998) working to garner the trust of collectors and the hobby at large. Rest assured that you can trust our service and can participate in our auctions with the confidence that integrity is our #1 priority.

When an Ebay user agrees to these terms by placing a bid, guess what... Brent automatically enters into the same agreement to uphold his end of those same auction rules which clearly and explicitly state:
We do NOT permit shill bidding of any kind and actively police our auctions to prevent such acts from occurring.

If Brent has too many listing to (I'm quoting from his own rules) "actively police" all of those listings then he is in violation of his own auction rules! And if having too many items listed at one time prevents him from following through with his own rules then that is his fault, he has failed his responsibility and he is in violation of his own auction rules and this is completely unacceptable.

[steve B]

I think one of the things that many agree with is that numerous bid retractions could a sign of shilling. If nothing else, they are definitely a sign of a "suspect buyer".

So.... it's time to put the myth to bed on how "time intensive" or "expensive" it is to monitor and act on possible shill bidders on ebay. Submitted for your approval...

Since my last post (less than 2 hours ago), I downloaded a FREE web crawler and configured it to show me a list of all the PWCC ebay auctions that completed in the last 7 days, view ALL the bidders on those auctions, and extract the number of bid retractions EACH bidder had for the past 6 months. This is under the Bid Extract column at the bottom. Each line in the bottom section is a list of the bid retractions in the last 6 months and the URL to a SPECIFIC buyer. There could be duplicates, but this could be filtered out.

This was a a POC (proof of concept) approach from myself, and while having some background working with computers, I have NO experience with web crawlers. That is why the output is somewhat "dirty" but could be beefed up and made pretty with probably a little more effort. Obviously from my lousy jpg I'm not one to be doing scan enhancements. :)

However the point is this: It is NOT difficult NOR expensive for someone selling on ebay to monitor and trace back bid retractions.

Note: I am NOT saying that PWCC knows about this or is involved with this or doesn't care. It was simply an exercise to point out how simple and cheap this is to do, if one has the desire to do so.

Ok, I wasn't aware that could be done that way.

I'll consider myself proven wrong about a major portion of the costs.

Someone would still have to check out those bidders, but with the largest part of the job done it's a much quicker task.

Even as a quick proof of concept this should be made available to sellers. If I was still selling and doing large volume I'd want it.


Steve B

[tschock]

Ok, I wasn't aware that could be done that way.

I'll consider myself proven wrong about a major portion of the costs.

Someone would still have to check out those bidders, but with the largest part of the job done it's a much quicker task.

Even as a quick proof of concept this should be made available to sellers. If I was still selling and doing large volume I'd want it.


Steve B

Steve,

Just to clarify. My comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular). :)

And you are correct about needing to follow up with specific items/bidders. My "sample" shows 8 retractions as the highest, but my sample only grabbed 150 bidders (and I didn't filter out which completed items, so it could have been grabbing $20 sales as well, meaning there are other things that can be tweaked). When you start grabbing more, you only need to start at the highest # and work down. I think there were those here that "found" bidders in the 50s for retractions. But even double digit retractions alone should start to give one pause. That is, if the seller actually wants to deal with this.

[Brent Huigens]

Thanks to everyone who has written here in a fair manner. These message boards provide a valuable check & balance to the hobby and we are not exempt from harsh (accurate or inaccurate) criticism.

From reading the comments and concerns on this thread it appears that there are two primary issues raised:

1) some folks feel scans sometimes appear inaccurate to how the card appears in person.

Scanning is something we take pride in doing right. Obviously we have no interest in misrepresenting a card as it would only hurt our buyer satisfaction. Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading. On that note, I can confirm that we've recently introduced some new scanners and that our settings have fluctuated somewhat over the last 90 days. However, the images we are now producing are exactly as we'd like them to appear so I ask that folks consider the images in current auctions and forward any examples that you feel are inaccurate. Please also remember that much of how a scan appears is as affected by the settings on the monitor you're using and if the scans appear overly bright (for example) you may want to consider lowering the brightness on your monitor.

Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially. We do have to specify certain parameters when the image is captured but all items sold receive the same settings and never is a single item isolated and adjusted in any way. Even if you don't like our scans, at least you be assured that they are 100% consistent from card to card.

Lastly, we have dedicated more time and effort to the scanning process than perhaps any other auction house. Yes, our images SHOULD appear brighter and clearer than your average scanner which often produce a grayish, sometimes foggy filter over the image. Our goal is have the card appear as it does in-person under quality lighting... nothing more, and nothing less.

2) questions surrounding bid retractions, etc

This is a valid concern and one we take very seriously. In fact, we are the only seller I'm aware of that actually prosecutes bid retractors. Anyone who retracts a bid in our auction is flagged by eBay trust and safety and their account is labeled with the improper action. Buyers will receive notices from eBay specifying their improper action and after a few retractions their account will be suspended. Furthermore, anyone who retracts a bid in a manner which we feel is highly unethical (i.e. perceived as possibly manipulating an auction) with have their account immediately blocked from future bidding with PWCC.

eBay has a weak policy on bid retractors and we are working with them to strengthen their position and issue more account restrictions when retractions occur.

Our policy on bid manipulation is firm, and has teeth. Any ID felt to be participating in an improper manner is blocked from bidding and reported to eBay. Any consignor who we feel may be manipulating their own auctions is also blocked from doing business with us and will have their IDs block and reported; this latter scenario is rare but has occurred. We have zero patience for this sort of activity and will pursue improper behavior with every resource we have available.

-------------------------------------

A couple comments that we ask all auction participants to consider as they help us police the eBay marketplace:
1) just because a bidder places 50% or more of their bids with PWCC does not suggest they are manipulating an auction. We have over 15,000 unique past buyers and many of these past customers appreciate the service we provide and choose to bid with us for the majority of their eBay bids. We have some clients who bid exclusively with us and will show bid percentages of 80% or higher. The critical detail to research is whether or not these bidders have received feedback from us for past purchases. A flag for us is any bidder with a high % of bids but little to no feedback; statistically it is unlikely that a bidder would place many bids, perhaps largely with only our account, and not win any items. Bidders with this sort of track record are usually blocked.

2) just because a bidder places multiple bids (even 10+ bids) on a single item is not automatically label that bidder as a shill participant. In researching countless situations like this, it has become abundantly clear that many eBay bidders choose to bid in ways that some would consider eccentric... they feel it's part of the fun of bidding on eBay. Until eBay changes its minimum bid increment, this sort of behavior may continue. What is important to look for are bidders who place multiple bids until becoming the high bidder and then retract their bid. Bidders who bid in this fashion are quickly blocked by us and are reported to eBay.

3) Please keep eBay in perspective with the other non-eBay auction venues. The beauty of eBay is that it's impartial and transparent. This transparency affords a wealth of information pertaining to bidder activity and information will naturally lead to conspiracy theories. If any impropriety is believed to have occurred, please contact us so we can take action. Please avoid jumping to emotional conclusions and let the data determine what’s right or wrong. Nobody cares more about the auction integrity than us. I assure you your time will not be wasted and we will research your claim. Help us make it better!

Thanks again to all who help make this hobby honest. Collector confidence is our #1 priority; without trust, we don't have much to offer our clients.

Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC
brent@pwccauctions.com
510-725-7853

[nolemmings]

Thank you for your response.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading."

Uh.... there is this ...... from CU

PWCCAuctions
New Member

Posts: 2
Joined: May 2012
Wednesday April 10, 2013 12:40 PM



As a general rule we try to stay out of the message boards because we feel they should be dominated by buyers/collections who are allowed to communicate freely, without intervention from sellers, dealers, auction houses, etc.

In rare cases we do feel a need to respond, most often when claims are made that simply warrant a response. To not respond may somehow suggest we condone slanderous comments, which of course we do not.

In particular, we are writing in response to baseless claims that we somehow are manipulating our scans. Such accusations are ridiculous and I ask that folks please remain substantive in their accusations of any company (not just PWCC). We are not altering our scans, in fact we go to great length to ensure the images we provide are as close to life-like as humanly possible. Obviously, if we were altering images we'd have plenty of upset buyers... right? Aside from the obvious moral objection associated with this level of misrepresentation, the shear workload associated with having to manipulate scans would be stagging. So even if you don't trust us personally, perhaps you can trust the practical impossibility of such an accusation.

The other topic I'd like to comment on is more general and it regards the overarching negativity that seems to stir around honesty and the hobby. As a fellow collector, I absolutely identify with the frustrations we've all felt from the past with various signs of impropriety. No doubt, history has shown a good number instances related to bid manipulations and other forms of fraud in the hobby... I get it. That said, we at PWCC have worked tirelessly to distance ourselves from these issues and feel we offer the single cleanest, most transparent auction venue in the hobby. We don't own the eBay software so we don't know the bid amounts, bidder IDs are available to the world with bid statistics, and our auctions are actively monitored by eBay trust and safety for improper bid retractions and various other activities from non-reputable members, etc. We ask that folks reach out to us directly if any signs of impropriety are detected and while these concerns are almost always explained, we always respond and address every concern in earnest.

The hobby is very strong these days and record prices are being realized on a regular basis (across the entire hobby; not just in our auctions). I ask that folks please exercise reason before posting slanderous comments about any company. For PWCC in particular, I ask that you please reach out to us directly (and post to this message board if required) but please give us a chance to address concerns directly. Our contact information is below.

Thanks to everyone who's an active member on this board; this is a very important part of the hobby.

Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions
brent@pwccauctions.com
510-725-7853

[calvindog]

Lolololololololol

[cincyredlegs]

"Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading."

Ummmmm, er, ahhhh, I meant the 2ND time I heard about it.

LMAO..............this is classic.

Mark

[ScottFandango]

getting popcorn....................

[calvindog]

Pesky paper trail!

[Peter_Spaeth]

"Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading."

Ummmmm, er, ahhhh, I meant the 2ND time I heard about it.

LMAO..............this is classic.

Mark

Those inconvenient paper trails.....

[cyseymour]

Thanks to everyone who has written here in a fair manner. These message boards provide a valuable check & balance to the hobby and we are not exempt from harsh (accurate or inaccurate) criticism.

From reading the comments and concerns on this thread it appears that there are two primary issues raised:

1) some folks feel scans sometimes appear inaccurate to how the card appears in person.

Scanning is something we take pride in doing right. Obviously we have no interest in misrepresenting a card as it would only hurt our buyer satisfaction. Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading. On that note, I can confirm that we've recently introduced some new scanners and that our settings have fluctuated somewhat over the last 90 days. However, the images we are now producing are exactly as we'd like them to appear so I ask that folks consider the images in current auctions and forward any examples that you feel are inaccurate. Please also remember that much of how a scan appears is as affected by the settings on the monitor you're using and if the scans appear overly bright (for example) you may want to consider lowering the brightness on your monitor.

Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially. We do have to specify certain parameters when the image is captured but all items sold receive the same settings and never is a single item isolated and adjusted in any way. Even if you don't like our scans, at least you be assured that they are 100% consistent from card to card.

Lastly, we have dedicated more time and effort to the scanning process than perhaps any other auction house. Yes, our images SHOULD appear brighter and clearer than your average scanner which often produce a grayish, sometimes foggy filter over the image. Our goal is have the card appear as it does in-person under quality lighting... nothing more, and nothing less.

2) questions surrounding bid retractions, etc

This is a valid concern and one we take very seriously. In fact, we are the only seller I'm aware of that actually prosecutes bid retractors. Anyone who retracts a bid in our auction is flagged by eBay trust and safety and their account is labeled with the improper action. Buyers will receive notices from eBay specifying their improper action and after a few retractions their account will be suspended. Furthermore, anyone who retracts a bid in a manner which we feel is highly unethical (i.e. perceived as possibly manipulating an auction) with have their account immediately blocked from future bidding with PWCC.

eBay has a weak policy on bid retractors and we are working with them to strengthen their position and issue more account restrictions when retractions occur.

Our policy on bid manipulation is firm, and has teeth. Any ID felt to be participating in an improper manner is blocked from bidding and reported to eBay. Any consignor who we feel may be manipulating their own auctions is also blocked from doing business with us and will have their IDs block and reported; this latter scenario is rare but has occurred. We have zero patience for this sort of activity and will pursue improper behavior with every resource we have available.

-------------------------------------

A couple comments that we ask all auction participants to consider as they help us police the eBay marketplace:
1) just because a bidder places 50% or more of their bids with PWCC does not suggest they are manipulating an auction. We have over 15,000 unique past buyers and many of these past customers appreciate the service we provide and choose to bid with us for the majority of their eBay bids. We have some clients who bid exclusively with us and will show bid percentages of 80% or higher. The critical detail to research is whether or not these bidders have received feedback from us for past purchases. A flag for us is any bidder with a high % of bids but little to no feedback; statistically it is unlikely that a bidder would place many bids, perhaps largely with only our account, and not win any items. Bidders with this sort of track record are usually blocked.

2) just because a bidder places multiple bids (even 10+ bids) on a single item is not automatically label that bidder as a shill participant. In researching countless situations like this, it has become abundantly clear that many eBay bidders choose to bid in ways that some would consider eccentric... they feel it's part of the fun of bidding on eBay. Until eBay changes its minimum bid increment, this sort of behavior may continue. What is important to look for are bidders who place multiple bids until becoming the high bidder and then retract their bid. Bidders who bid in this fashion are quickly blocked by us and are reported to eBay.

3) Please keep eBay in perspective with the other non-eBay auction venues. The beauty of eBay is that it's impartial and transparent. This transparency affords a wealth of information pertaining to bidder activity and information will naturally lead to conspiracy theories. If any impropriety is believed to have occurred, please contact us so we can take action. Please avoid jumping to emotional conclusions and let the data determine what’s right or wrong. Nobody cares more about the auction integrity than us. I assure you your time will not be wasted and we will research your claim. Help us make it better!

Thanks again to all who help make this hobby honest. Collector confidence is our #1 priority; without trust, we don't have much to offer our clients.

Brent Huigens
PWCC Auctions, LLC
brent@pwccauctions.com
510-725-7853


Here is the crux of the problem:

Keep in my that I am not one of the ones who accused them of wrongdoing since I have not really examined their scans. But based on the post above, PWCC writes that they do in fact adjust the settings on their scanner. Even if they scan all the cards at the same settings, I find that problematic. You can change the contrast and the hue among other things to enhance the visual effects of the scan. Brent may insist that it is being done to make the scan more accurate, but I feel that in fact it is causing many complaints that the scans are enhanced.

I am among the crowd who strongly feel that scans ought not be enhanced in this matter by changing the settings - the work ought to be done on the standard settings of the scanner. I understand the counter-argument that, to him, it might make the card appear more realistic, but others will invariably feel otherwise, and this has exposed him to a tremendous amount of criticism. I would highly recommend resetting the settings back to normal on the scans - other auction houses are also tampering with the settings and I find it exasperating (and indeed question the legality of such an act).

As for the shill bidding and bid retractions, PWCC's efforts are appreciated, but it does appear to be happening on a rather frequent basis, if the reports of the posters here are any measure. Maybe it's time for PWCC to double down on their efforts? At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect. So, thank you, Brent!

[Peter_Spaeth]

"At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect."

Given that he started his post with a blatant lie (saying he had never heard the concern about scans before, when he had made a lengthy response to a thread on CU on precisely that point just a few months ago, as posted above), I respectfullly dissent from that assessment.

[cyseymour]

"At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect."

Given that he started his post with a blatant lie (saying he had never heard the concern about scans before, when he had made a lengthy response to a thread on CU on precisely that point just a few months ago, as posted above), I respectfullly dissent from that assessment.

Fair enough, but the disclosure that he was indeed changing the settings of the scanner was really the more pertinent information that we have been looking for. About that, he was direct, so I do respect that.

[Leon]

Fair enough, but the disclosure that he was indeed changing the settings of the scanner was really the more pertinent information that we have been looking for. About that, he was direct, so I do respect that.

Actually, to me, except for making the mistake of 1 or 2 times hearing about it, the whole post from Brent was spot on. I hope if someone sends him a report of a major bid retractor bidding in his auctions that he will take action. On the scanner settings, I always leave them at their defaults. It's just the best way and it seems to be the most accurate scans, all in all.

[calvindog]

"At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect."

Given that he started his post with a blatant lie (saying he had never heard the concern about scans before, when he had made a lengthy response to a thread on CU on precisely that point just a few months ago, as posted above), I respectfullly dissent from that assessment.

Kind of hard to continue reading his post after the obvious lie at the beginning. In a trial, the jury would be given an instruction that they could infer that the rest of his "testimony" is filled with lies as well.

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

[tschock]

Actually, to me, except for making the mistake of 1 or 2 times hearing about it, the whole post from Brent was spot on. I hope if someone sends him a report of a major bid retractor bidding in his auctions that he will take action. On the scanner settings, I always leave them at their defaults. It's just the best way and it seems to be the most accurate scans, all in all.

Leon,

Not sure he is planning on doing anything though about the general bid retractions outside of his auctions. But at the same time, as long as they aren't retracting bids on his auctions, why should it matter to him?

"Anyone who retracts a bid in our auction is flagged by eBay trust and safety and their account is labeled with the improper action."

Can we actual tell if someone retracted a bid in one of HIS auctions (or any SPECIFIC auction)? Ebay reports retraction totals, but I'll leave it to one of the experts to answer this.

Obviously that is a "bigger picture" problem. And if it doesn't matter to ebay, why should it matter to any particular seller (beyond their own auctions)?

[cyseymour]

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

I don't know, but the obvious solution is that auction houses ought to disclose in their terms exactly which scanner it is that they're using and what exactly the settings are.

[calvindog]

I don't know, but the obvious solution is that auction houses ought to disclose in their terms exactly which scanner it is that they're using and what exactly the settings are.

Or they could simply stop screwing around with the scans in an effort to hide the flaws of the cards they're selling.

[Leon]

Leon,

Not sure he is planning on doing anything though about the general bid retractions outside of his auctions. But at the same time, as long as they aren't retracting bids on his auctions, why should it matter to him?

"Anyone who retracts a bid in our auction is flagged by eBay trust and safety and their account is labeled with the improper action."

Can we actual tell if someone retracted a bid in one of HIS auctions (or any SPECIFIC auction)? Ebay reports retraction totals, but I'll leave it to one of the experts to answer this.

Obviously that is a "bigger picture" problem. And if it doesn't matter to ebay, why should it matter to any particular seller (beyond their own auctions)?

I would only be concerned what happens in my (in this case Brent's) auctions. If someone has 50 bid retractions in others auctions, not my concern. If they have 50, then retract one in mine, they would be out. I guess we could have any number of scenarios but I don't think (could be wrong) anyone is asking Brent to do anything other than in his own auctions. I think if you look back at my post I stated something to the effect, if a member has lots of bid retractions, then does it in my auction, I would boot them...and I would. Hope this clarifies my statement.

[cyseymour]

Or they could simply stop screwing around with the scans in an effort to hide the flaws of the cards they're selling.

If they revealed which scanner/settings they were using, it would go a long way towards accomplishing that.

[calvindog]

I don't know any of my scanner settings -- but I know which cards I've tweaked to make them look brighter. This isn't rocket science. Brent knows exactly what he's doing.

[cyseymour]

I don't know any of my scanner settings -- but I know which cards I've tweaked to make them look brighter. This isn't rocket science. Brent knows exactly what he's doing.

Congrats on your 3,000th post.

There is no question that Brent knows what he's doing. And there's no question the other AH's do as well. It's a question of what we can do. It could be difficult to force the ones who are image editing to change. Constructive steps need to be taken. Auction houses that don't image edit can put that in their terms and it could be a boon to them. It shows that they have committed to a clean auction.

As for the ones that change their settings, we don't have to like it. But having them disclose it in their terms would still be a major step forward. Until this afternoon, not a single AH had confessed to changing scanner settings. Brent stepped forward and became accountable. That is much better than the mystery game we were playing previously. It doesn't make him a hero, but it is a big step.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Actually, to me, except for making the mistake of 1 or 2 times hearing about it, the whole post from Brent was spot on. I hope if someone sends him a report of a major bid retractor bidding in his auctions that he will take action. On the scanner settings, I always leave them at their defaults. It's just the best way and it seems to be the most accurate scans, all in all.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? EDIT TO ADD It was a blatant lie, not a "mistake."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

Same reason the high grade cards are usually too small, not too big.:D

[calvindog]

Brent stepped forward and became accountable.

Respectfully, I disagree completely. Brent responded with a bullshit lie because he felt pressured to respond. Blaming it on our monitors? Please. For some reason my monitor works fine when viewing Rob Lifson's scans, not so fine when viewing Brent's.

[Republicaninmass]

Silence speaks volumes, I cant see how any real bidder could have more than one retraction. I have never had one!

[cyseymour]

Respectfully, I disagree completely. Brent responded with a bullshit lie because he felt pressured to respond. Blaming it on our monitors? Please. For some reason my monitor works fine when viewing Rob Lifson's scans, not so fine when viewing Brent's.

Nevermind Brent, then - what do you plan to do about the problem? As far as I can tell, Jeff, you are long on complaints, as legitimate as they may be, and short on solutions. Whether Brent wins Boy Scout Trooper of the Year is not the issue - the greater issue is, how do we stop AH's from jacking up their scans?

[autograf]

You know.....you can pretty much say anything as long as you preface it 'respectfully' or 'in all due respect'.....

[the 'stache]

getting popcorn....................

+1

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g5/Jorjelus/Smiley/bth_popcorn.gif

[RGold]

I went to Burger King today and my Whopper didn't look anything like the picture.

http://photos.imageevent.com/rgold/ebay/image.jpg

And, don't get me started on Nutrisystem's pictures. :D:D:D

http://photos.imageevent.com/rgold/ebay/image_2.jpg

[steve B]

Steve,

Just to clarify. My comment wasn't directed at you (or anyone in particular). :)

And you are correct about needing to follow up with specific items/bidders. My "sample" shows 8 retractions as the highest, but my sample only grabbed 150 bidders (and I didn't filter out which completed items, so it could have been grabbing $20 sales as well, meaning there are other things that can be tweaked). When you start grabbing more, you only need to start at the highest # and work down. I think there were those here that "found" bidders in the 50s for retractions. But even double digit retractions alone should start to give one pause. That is, if the seller actually wants to deal with this.

I didn't take it as anything personal.

I'm not all that shy about putting my opinions out there on technical issues.
But part of that is that if I get it wrong I'm ok with admitting it.
I don't like being wrong and try to avoid it, but it happens.

Steve B

[steve B]

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

[thehoodedcoder]

delete

kevin

[thehoodedcoder]

"At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect."

Given that he started his post with a blatant lie (saying he had never heard the concern about scans before, when he had made a lengthy response to a thread on CU on precisely that point just a few months ago, as posted above), I respectfullly dissent from that assessment.


all of this is important and with all due respect.... your posts are every other reply on every schill bidding thread in the forum. you must have a day job or something right?

of course you disagree. every other reply as i am reading this. and on every other thread.

id have to dig back through your posts to find out the last time you made a post about something other than corruption in the hobby?


i think we need a fraud section so people that want to continue to harp on the same topic 17 hours a day can do it in a section all its own. every time i turn around there is another one of these and its the same 5 people pounding it every 10 minutes to the top of the topic list.

kevin

[deucetwins]

all of this is important and with all due respect.... your posts are every other reply on every schill bidding thread in the forum. you must have a day job or something right?

of course you disagree. every other reply as i am reading this. and on every other thread.

id have to dig back through your posts to find out the last time you made a post about something other than corruption in the hobby?


i think we need a fraud section so people that want to continue to harp on the same topic 17 hours a day can do it in a section all its own. every time i turn around there is another one of these and its the same 5 people pounding it every 10 minutes to the top of the topic list.

kevin
+1. Getting kinda old. Shilling is just part of the auction biz. Same as sniping.

[toledo_mudhen]

Anathema was originally used as a term for exile from the church, but evolved to mean "set apart, banished, denounced". The word comes from Koine Greek ἀνάθεμα,[1] meaning "something dedicated, especially dedicated to evil", from ἀνατίθημι (anatithēmi), meaning "offer as a votive gift", from ἀνά (ana), meaning "on", and τίθημι (tithēmi), meaning "I put". It originally meant something lifted up as an offering to the gods; it later evolved to mean:

to be formally set apart;
banished, exiled, excommunicated;
denounced, sometimes accursed

"Anathema" is a word used mainly in the English language to describe vehement disagreement to something. It is not a commonly used word, particularly in spoken language, perhaps because its meaning is often confused.

[frankbmd]

Anathema was originally used as a term for exile from the church, but evolved to mean "set apart, banished, denounced". The word comes from Koine Greek ἀνάθεμα,[1] meaning "something dedicated, especially dedicated to evil", from ἀνατίθημι (anatithēmi), meaning "offer as a votive gift", from ἀνά (ana), meaning "on", and τίθημι (tithēmi), meaning "I put". It originally meant something lifted up as an offering to the gods; it later evolved to mean:

to be formally set apart;
banished, exiled, excommunicated;
denounced, sometimes accursed

"Anathema" is a word used mainly in the English language to describe vehement disagreement to something. It is not a commonly used word, particularly in spoken language, perhaps because its meaning is often confused.

At the spelling bee
Moderator: "ANATHEMATIC"
Contestant: "Anathematic" (Pause) "Can you use that in a sentence please?"
Moderator: "Baseball fans find logistics in statistics and therfore infrequently find mathematics anathematic."

Contestant: (Pause) "Anathematic...A-N-A-T-H-E-M-A-T-I-C-E-I-E-I-O":D

[calvindog]

Nevermind Brent, then - what do you plan to do about the problem? As far as I can tell, Jeff, you are long on complaints, as legitimate as they may be, and short on solutions. Whether Brent wins Boy Scout Trooper of the Year is not the issue - the greater issue is, how do we stop AH's from jacking up their scans?

How do the victims stop the fraud? Is that what you're asking?

Simple: we can make complaints to law enforcement or we can sue them. That's the only thing that seems to slow the fraud down it seems. Outing them here publicly just causes numerous sheep and others financially aligned with the crooked auction houses to jump up and try to silence those who point out the fraud. You should go look at the threads from 2006 and 2007 and see how many Net 54 stalwarts defended Doug Allen and Bill Mastro from fraud allegations.

[ullmandds]

What I'd like to know is are these consignment based ebay clearing houses providing the shillers...or are the consigners doing the shilling?

I'm guessing a little of both?

[calvindog]

What I'd like to know is are these consignment based ebay clearing houses providing the shillers...or are the consigners doing the shilling?

I'm guessing a little of both?

Who knows. In Mastro's case it was surely both. But they could see their consigners bidding on their own auctions at times so I wouldn't say they were absolved from that type of fraud.

[CobbvLajoie1910]

all of this is important and with all due respect.... your posts are every other reply on every schill bidding thread in the forum. you must have a day job or something right?

of course you disagree. every other reply as i am reading this. and on every other thread.

id have to dig back through your posts to find out the last time you made a post about something other than corruption in the hobby?


i think we need a fraud section so people that want to continue to harp on the same topic 17 hours a day can do it in a section all its own. every time i turn around there is another one of these and its the same 5 people pounding it every 10 minutes to the top of the topic list.

kevin


Says he who has been a member of this board for a year.

Peter has been a regular poster well prior to the current incarnation of Net54.
I'm pretty sure he's earned some latitude to speak up about it.

I think he, Jeff, and many others, have grown quite tired (and understandably so) of having to check their back pocket at every turn -- to make sure their wallet is still there.

I miss these boards (and it's core posters) circa 2006, 2007. Those were good days.

[Ease]

What I'd like to know is are these consignment based ebay clearing houses providing the shillers...or are the consigners doing the shilling?

I'm guessing a little of both?

I feel like its gotta be predominately consignors doing the shilling, the big ebay clearing houses just provide the open door/avenue for shilling.

[thehoodedcoder]

Says he who has been a member of this board for a year.

Peter has been a regular poster well prior to the current incarnation of Net54.
I'm pretty sure he's earned some latitude to speak up about it.

I think he, Jeff, and many others, have grown quite tired (and understandably so) of having to check their back pocket at every turn -- to make sure their wallet is still there.

I miss these boards (and it's core posters) circa 2006, 2007. Those were good days.

yea. i said "with all due respect", as i have nothing against the guy or anyone else in here.

its getting old. 80 percent of his last posts are about something that is "wrong" whether it is schill bidding, cards sitting on ebay to long, scan enhancements with some. do we really need to fill this board up with these threads every time a single one is found?

coooome on. they have a place but its ridiculous. some people just love and need drama in their lives. i would say that people that feel the need to pound these threads until they are pancake thin.

and yes, as a board member for a year with over 500 posts, i can tell you that when i come on here and the only constructive thing getting talked about is that then i have less desire to visit frequently.

the last thing i want to do is have my hobby turn into Days of our Lives. while its important to out some one, im not certian why others feel the need to soley focus on that as their lifes mission.

since there are so many of those people, we really could use a seperate section where those people can go, and be miserable about the hobby and leave the rest of everyone else to the brighter side of things.

im certian others feel the same way.

kevin

[ullmandds]

with all due respect...after thousands of posts and decades of collecting vintage...you run out of things to discuss. i mean there aren't many cards I haven't seen in my life?!

this is a timely subject that affects us all. just because many of you want to just continue to live in your own little bubbles...continue to sweep the shit under the rug...protect your "investments" or ignore because you are benefitting from this corruption...eventually the shit pile will become overwhelming to the point it must be cleaned up.

housing bubble, banking debacle, gov't clusterf&ck...I realize this is just baseball cards...but if we continue to ignore...and let the crooks continue their crookery...nothing will ever change.

keeping this topic at the forefront is the only way that things could possibly change!

[Peter_Spaeth]

with all due respect...after thousands of posts and decades of collecting vintage...you run out of things to discuss. i mean there aren't many cards I haven't seen in my life?!

this is a timely subject that affects us all. just because many of you want to just continue to live in your own little bubbles...continue to sweep the shit under the rug...protect your "investments" or ignore because you are benefitting from this corruption...eventually the shit pile will become overwhelming to the point it must be cleaned up.

housing bubble, banking debacle, gov't clusterf&ck...I realize this is just baseball cards...but if we continue to ignore...and let the crooks continue their crookery...nothing will ever change.

keeping this topic at the forefront is the only way that things could possibly change!

Maybe it's time for another thread about which grading service do you prefer?
:D

Kevin, that's cool, our priorities are different, so just ignore my posts if they bore you.

[novakjr]

I feel like its gotta be predominately consignors doing the shilling, the big ebay clearing houses just provide the open door/avenue for shilling.

And ebay allows for the deniability on both ends. Because ultimately, ebay allows the bidder information to be hidden, from the buyers, pwcc and the consignors, and leaves everything to speculation.

Essentially, the items are consigned twice. Once to pwcc, and then again to ebay, adding another link to the chain of command, and allowing both parties to either point the finger at the other, or(more than likely in this case) to claim that bids that appear fraudulent, or fluky, are just part of the amateur nature of ebay bidding in general.. We've all seen legitimately indecisive, idiot, flaky bidders before. Not just on ebay, but even in our own b/s/t forums here. But Ebay's setup, hides bidder info(unlike here), and allows those types to ultimately be blamed, even when they aren't involved..

Both consignors and pwcc, are aware of the loopholes that ebay allows them to take advantage of. And that is why they are still on ebay in the first place, instead of running their own auctions... Why keep letting ebay take a cut, when they could just do it themselves? Well, because they wouldn't do as well, and then they'd ultimately be accountable for anything seemingly shady.. The extra money from bid manipulation, far outweighs the fees from ebay.. Don't get me wrong, I don't think pwcc is doing the manipulation, BUT I think they know it's going on, and continue to turn a blind eye to it. Why? Well, because it benefits them..

I truly believe, they used ebay as a launching pad for a legitimate business, BUT there comes a point when you decide it's better off to stay in a system that allows for manipulation, than to move on to one in which you can't, because you'd shorten the paper trail, and ultimately open yourself up for accountability.

[ullmandds]

pete...i'd much rather talk about how to go about beginning to collect T206...now that's interesting!

[cyseymour]

How do the victims stop the fraud? Is that what you're asking?

Simple: we can make complaints to law enforcement or we can sue them. That's the only thing that seems to slow the fraud down it seems. Outing them here publicly just causes numerous sheep and others financially aligned with the crooked auction houses to jump up and try to silence those who point out the fraud. You should go look at the threads from 2006 and 2007 and see how many Net 54 stalwarts defended Doug Allen and Bill Mastro from fraud allegations.

I don't think that suing them is a workable option. You'd have to prove damages, which could be complicated, and I seriously doubt that many hobbyists want to get involved with a civil suit.

So you are pretty much talking about making complaints to law enforcement. It is not a terrible idea, but personally, I do not want to get involved at that level at this time. I recently (knowingly) bought two cards with jacked up scans, so yes it is annoying. But you and Peter are the lawyers, I am not that comfortable getting mixed up in those types of things, so I will leave it to you guys. Good luck!

And I agree that many folks are getting tired of the endless shill bidding/scan editing threads. Switching the scanner settings or not, I do not believe Brent H to be the scourge of this hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

pete...i'd much rather talk about how to go about beginning to collect T206...now that's interesting!

Which background color is your favorite?

[calvindog]

What's your top 5 T206 portraits?

[Leon]

Which background color is your favorite?


Pink.....................I am sorry, what are we talking about?

[calvindog]

How do you display your T206s?

[Leon]

How do you display your T206s?

Why do people collect T206s?

[Iron Horse]

I like my T206 portraits to be Bright :)

[bnorth]

Why do people collect T206s?

I blame my collecting of the T206 cards directly on this forum.:eek:

Before I became a member I never even considered collecting them. I am glad I became a member.:D

[ullmandds]

Even in mockery...t206 cant be denied?

[thehoodedcoder]

instead of complaining about it day in and day out with ...eh...some proof...

how about change your approach since clearly that is not working.

how about someone just start testing the limits, recording what they are doing with dates, times, auction houses and auctions, such as winning their own auctions

...and seeing if what if anything is done about it by the auction house, then reporting that here first hand with screen shots, email conversations etc.

....much like the the secret shopper theives.

when someone confronts with, undeniable evidence where they have ALL of the facts it will be much more credible than sitting around, speculating and waiting for the auction houses to happen upon a thread and give some lame middle of the road answer so everyone can move on from the conversation.

do some evidence gathering and recon instead just bitching about what is wrong. in the long run if you feel that strongly about it you can then turn that evidence over to someone that can do something about it.

hell, even start a donation bin where you can donate items for consignment or dollars to go towards bidding for anyone that is so inclined to clean up the hobby. i will guess is that no one will go so far as to become johnny justice at their own expense for the good of the hobby.

stop bitching and start doing if you plan to make a difference. talking does nothing expcept spur argument and debate about something that will NEVER change until something is DONE about it.

kevin

[Rob D.]

Kevin,

There aren't many people on 54 whose posts I look forward to reading. You are definitely one of them. Please don't stop doing what you do.

[calvindog]

instead of complaining about it day in and day out with ...eh...some proof...

how about change your approach since clearly that is not working.

how about someone just start testing the limits, recording what they are doing with dates, times, auction houses and auctions, such as winning their own auctions

...and seeing if what if anything is done about it by the auction house, then reporting that here first hand with screen shots, email conversations etc.

....much like the the secret shopper theives.

when someone confronts with, undeniable evidence where they have ALL of the facts it will be much more credible than sitting around, speculating and waiting for the auction houses to happen upon a thread and give some lame middle of the road answer so everyone can move on from the conversation.

do some evidence gathering and recon instead just bitching about what is wrong. in the long run if you feel that strongly about it you can then turn that evidence over to someone that can do something about it.

hell, even start a donation bin where you can donate items for consignment or dollars to go towards bidding for anyone that is so inclined to clean up the hobby. i will guess is that no one will go so far as to become johnny justice at their own expense for the good of the hobby.

stop bitching and start doing if you plan to make a difference. talking does nothing expcept spur argument and debate about something that will NEVER change until something is DONE about it.

kevin

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously? Do you know how many people who sell cards or memorabilia for a living have been subpoenaed to grand juries? Who have been indicted? Who have plead guilty to felonies? Who have been successfully sued for fraud? Do you know how much of this has occurred due to this board?

[slipk1068]

id have to dig back through your posts to find out the last time you made a post about something other than corruption in the hobby?


I left the hobby for over 20 years because of the fraud. I am slowly getting back into it, and would prefer not to have to leave it again. I for 1, appreciate you folks enlightening me to potential risks, and pointing out the fraud.

+1. Getting kinda old. Shilling is just part of the auction biz. Same as sniping.

Are you seriously comparing shilling to sniping?

[Leon]

Are you seriously comparing shilling to sniping?

Well, one is legal and one is illegal. Besides that they are the same.

[drcy]

A snipe is just a method of placing a bid. It could be used for shilling or quasi hidden reserves, but lots of snipe bids are placed by genuine bidders trying to win the lot.

[deucetwins]

Wasn't trying to compare. Just stating that both are present in the auction business.

[jhs5120]

Can someone post a picture of an item in his most recent auction that had crazy scanner settings?

I think his pictures are the best in the hobby.

[Runscott]

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t192/SoliDeoGloria_2007/BetterCallSaul1_zps5ea5242f.jpg

[1880nonsports]

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. BTW I wanted to note my appreciation for your postings - they are always well written (well unless you haven't had your coffee or beer) and I most often find them to be on point or interesting........

[calvindog]

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

But what about those who have a financial interest in the seller or his fraud -- how will they manage to eat?

[cyseymour]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

[jhs5120]

Can someone please post a misrepresented scan from their most recent auction? I have been under the impression the problem was fixed.

[D. Bergin]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.


Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Maybe you have some super-intuitive scanner in your possession but most don't. Most scanners I have ever owned, and I have owned many, need to be tweaked in the professional setting in order to reflect what type of item you are scanning whether it be a real photo, lithograph, printed photo, old paper stock, new paper stock. They are all scanned somewhat differently in order to look as close to the approximation they look in real life.

A scanner will play all kinds of havoc with off white's, just depending on where you crop it sometimes, and you have to adjust to either remove or keep the brightness factor the automatic settings apply.

[calvindog]

Can someone please post a misrepresented scan from their most recent auction? I have been under the impression the problem was fixed.

How can the problem be fixed? He just found out about the problem AFTER the auction, remember?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Maybe you have some super-intuitive scanner in your possession but most don't. Most scanners I have ever owned, and I have owned many, need to be tweaked in the professional setting in order to reflect what type of item you are scanning whether it be a real photo, lithograph, printed photo, old paper stock, new paper stock. They are all scanned somewhat differently in order to look as close to the approximation they look in real life.

A scanner will play all kinds of havoc with off white's, just depending on where you crop it sometimes, and you have to adjust to either remove or keep the brightness factor the automatic settings apply.

I disagree pretty strongly as well. I haven't read this entire thread, but I can say sometimes you have to tweak the scanner settings. I know when I scan a card at home, it looks much different than when I scan it at work (each before any adjustment). I'll post images tonight to show this w/o any adjustments on either scan. Even cameras have different settings based on the background and conditions of the object being photographed. Scanners are the same way based on what you are scanning.

All that said, I don't know much about PWCC (I choose to overlook his auctions as the prices are too high for me), but if he is tweaking scans to hide a card's flaws, then that's another story and I'm certainly not defending that.

[cyseymour]

Guys, the argument can be made either way - that it is more or less realistic if the settings are adjusted. But the bottom line is that three separate entities - Legendary, Goodwin, and PWCC, have had threads created about them in which they are accused of juicing their scans, and there wasn't a whole lot of dissent about whether it was occurring in any of those threads. The proof is in the pudding - look at the cards, and you will see the difference. You can see that the scans are coming out brighter than they really are. Meanwhile, we have auction houses like B&L who don't change the settings from default on their scanner. You haven't heard a lot of complaints about B&L's scans, have you?

So the question is, how do you know when there's funny business going on, when something isn't quite right with a scan? It's because you can see it, you know that that's not what the card looks like, that that's not what the card really is. We can argue the details of scanners and settings till the end of time, but when a scan is being juiced, you just know, because you know it when you see it.

[ullmandds]

jamie...you mean when a scan is juiced...you'll know it after you've received the item...right?

[vintagetoppsguy]

118855The proof is in the pudding - look at the cards, and you will see the difference. You can see that the scans are coming out brighter than they really are.

You're assuming that just because the scans are brighter, he's adjusting the settings. This may not be so. I work for an engineering company and I use a lot of different reproduction equipment. One scanner I use very often is designed to enhance colors (mostly reds and blues) and minimize black (factory settings). We mark-up vendor drawings with red and blue pencils and this scanner enhances our marks and comments so when we send them back to the vendor, our marks really stand out for easy identification.

My point is that you have no idea what kind of scanner he is using and are only assuming that he is adjusting the colors because of the brightness of the scans. If you like, I can scan a card with my scanner at work and then scan the same card with my scanner at home and you will see a noticeable difference in the brightness of the two cards (using only factory settings on each).

[cyseymour]

jamie...you mean when a scan is juiced...you'll know it after you've received the item...right?

I think you can tell even before that... you can look at the flip... is it the proper color. Is the SGC label light or dark green? Or just look at the card itself - I know what an OJ looks like, I've seen plenty of them, and I know that they don't glow orange or shine in bright ways. So if they are doing that on the scan, it's pretty obvious that something funny is going on there, right?

Have I bought cards, just in the last couple of months, from scans which I knew were juiced, and gotten the card home to see that it was indeed true that the scan was juiced? Yeah, I have, because I wanted those particular cards. But I may have paid more for them than I otherwise would have because other bidders might not realize it was juiced. This is one of those things that inflates prices, just like shill bidding. It is another artificial inflation of prices. Some call it fraud.

[cyseymour]

118855

You're assuming that just because the scans are brighter, he's adjusting the settings. This may not be so. I work for an engineering company and I use a lot of different reproduction equipment. One scanner I use very often is designed to enhance colors (mostly reds and blues) and minimize black (factory settings). We mark-up vendor drawings with red and blue pencils and this scanner enhances our marks and comments so when we send them back to the vendor, our marks really stand out for easy identification.

My point is that you have no idea what kind of scanner he is using and are only assuming that he is adjusting the colors because of the brightness of the scans. If you like, I can scan a card with my scanner at work and then scan the same card with my scanner at home and you will see a noticeable difference in the brightness of the two cards (using only factory settings on each).

Okay, David, please read Brent's post. Brent himself said that he was adjusting the settings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Okay, David, please read Brent's post. Brent himself said that he was adjusting the settings.

He did say that and in any event it's beside the point. When you need goggles to protect your eyes from scans, there is a problem even if that is what the factory settings do.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Okay, David, please read Brent's post. Brent himself said that he was adjusting the settings.

As I said earlier, I haven't read the thread, but I did go back and look for Brent's post. Here's what I saw (copied and pasted directly from his statement).

Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially.

Where do you read that he said that he was adjusting the settings?

[vintagetoppsguy]

And just to clarify, adjusting the scanner settings doesn't necessarily mean adjusting the color. It can also mean adjusting the size, the output format (PDF, JPEG), etc.

[cyseymour]

Frankly, this is the first time we have heard anybody suggest our scans were misleading. On that note, I can confirm that we've recently introduced some new scanners and that our settings have fluctuated somewhat over the last 90 days.

Here it is... it is located in the paragraph above what you quoted.

[cyseymour]

It can also mean adjusting the size, the output format (PDF, JPEG), etc.

That wouldn't make any sense within the context of what is being discussed. Come on, Dave. You are better than that.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Here it is... it is located in the paragraph above what you quoted.

It's funny how two people can read the exact same thing and get two different meanings. He said "I can confirm that we've recently introduced some new scanners and that our settings have fluctuated somewhat over the last 90 days."

He said the settings fluctuated. I have no idea what that means, but maybe he meant the settings were different from the old scanners to the new scanners. Who knows? But he didn't say it was anything they did purposely. You're conveniently overlooking the part where he says "Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially."

Once again, I don't know Brent. As far as I can remember, I don't think I've ever even made a purchase from him. My only point is that settings are different from scanner to scanner and you can scan the same card with two different scanners using the factory settings and they will probably appear differently.

[cyseymour]

He meant that he bought new scanners and has been adjusting the settings on the new scanners to get the best scan. That much should be obvious to anyone. It is the only thing that makes any sense within the context of the discussion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As we say in law, the thing speaks for itself.

[vintagetoppsguy]

He meant that he bought new scanners and has been adjusting the settings on the new scanners to get the best scan. That much should be obvious to anyone. It is the only thing that makes any sense within the context of the discussion.

Are you really this hard headed? Okay, if that's what he meant, then what did he mean by "Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially."

[cyseymour]

Are you really this hard headed? Okay, if that's what he meant, then what did he mean by "Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially."

He meant, "I don't want to get in trouble for this."

[vintagetoppsguy]

He meant, "I don't want to get in trouble for this."

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification.

So, that makes him a liar too, right? Because first, according to your interpretation, he said that he did adjust the settings, but then he contradicted himself and said that he didn't adjust the settings.

This Brent guy sounds like a bad dude. I'll steer clear. Thanks for the warning.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not sure I follow this exchange, but he certainly lied about never having heard of any issues with his scans prior to this thread.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not sure I follow this exchange, but he certainly lied about never having heard of any issues with his scans prior to this thread.

Peter, he may have. I don't know. Just glancing through the thread (again, I'm late to the party - didn't read it all), there also seems to be some accusations of allowing shill bidding too.

Right or wrong though, you do have to give him some credit. At least he came on here to address the accusations. That's a lot more than we can say about Tricky Ricky Probstein.

Take care!

[jhs5120]

Can someone PLEASE show me an example of an unrealistic scan from the most recent auction. Peter posted an old scan, I would like to see a recent one. From what I have noticed (and from Brent has said) the issue you has been fixed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, he may have. I don't know. Just glancing through the thread (again, I'm late to the party - didn't read it all), there also seems to be some accusations of allowing shill bidding too.

Right or wrong though, you do have to give him some credit. At least he came on here to address the accusations. That's a lot more than we can say about Tricky Ricky Probstein.

Take care!

76, then 78. And I give no credit for coming on and lying, no. And at one point Rick came on too, if memory serves.

[vintagetoppsguy]

76, then 78.

Oh! :(

[cyseymour]

It helps if you read the thread first before starting your arguments.

[calvindog]

Brent came onto the thread, lied, and left.

[Runscott]

Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

You are wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Brent came onto the thread, lied, and left.

Veni, mentiri, abdici, or something like that.

[cyseymour]

You are wrong.

You are from outer space. Just ask the Saco River guy.

[vintagetoppsguy]

It helps if you read the thread first before starting your arguments.

You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. I picked up from post 142 where you inferred that a scan should never be adjusted. You're were wrong and two other people have also since told you that you are wrong. There are sometimes when scans should be adjusted to represent the actual card. My point was, and I'll repeat it again because you obviously keep missing it, is that you can take the same card, scan it with two different scanners using the factory settings, and they'll still appear differently. I have forgotten more about scanners than you'll ever know.

[calvindog]

veni, mentiri, abdici, or something like that.

lololololol

[RGold]

Abusus non tollit usum. :D:D:D

[danmckee]

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously? Do you know how many people who sell cards or memorabilia for a living have been subpoenaed to grand juries? Who have been indicted? Who have plead guilty to felonies? Who have been successfully sued for fraud? Do you know how much of this has occurred due to this board?

Yes Jeff, he is an idiot!

Dan Mckee

[cyseymour]

You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. I picked up from post 142 where you inferred that a scan should never be adjusted. You're were wrong and two other people have also since told you that you are wrong. There are sometimes when scans should be adjusted to represent the actual card. My point was, and I'll repeat it again because you obviously keep missing it, is that you can take the same card, scan it with two different scanners using the factory settings, and they'll still appear differently. I have forgotten more about scanners than you'll ever know.

I know that scans can look different from different scanners, but that is not the issue here. And I still don't think that scans ought to be adjusted, especially with the new scanners like the Canonscan 9000 there is absolutely no reason to adjust. It is not that hard for an auction house to post an accurate scan - Sterling, Mile High, B&L, Just Collect among others do just that. It is really very simple. A nice scanner costs under $200 these days and there is no excuse. Brent H himself said that he had been changing the settings, so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense.

[thehoodedcoder]

Yes Jeff, he is an idiot!

Dan Mckee

eat a di** dan.

Edit***
Actually eat a couple of them. Your overweight so I know your hungry all of time.
kevin quinn

[CMIZ5290]

You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. I picked up from post 142 where you inferred that a scan should never be adjusted. You're were wrong and two other people have also since told you that you are wrong. There are sometimes when scans should be adjusted to represent the actual card. My point was, and I'll repeat it again because you obviously keep missing it, is that you can take the same card, scan it with two different scanners using the factory settings, and they'll still appear differently. I have forgotten more about scanners than you'll ever know.

Hey Dave- Glad you mentioned scanners...What is the best on the market price wise? It's all I can do to screw in a light bulb......

[thehoodedcoder]

Are you some kind of idiot? Seriously? Do you know how many people who sell cards or memorabilia for a living have been subpoenaed to grand juries? Who have been indicted? Who have plead guilty to felonies? Who have been successfully sued for fraud? Do you know how much of this has occurred due to this board?


i did not have time to properly respond to you this morning. dan's response was much easier at 5 am.

this is simply a response. it is not really meant for argument, and i probably will not even read it to be honest with you, if one does come.

1)
do you really think that i don't know that people on here like to prosecute people for their wrong doings? half of the conversations are about slander, lawsuits, the fbi or what have you? almost makes you wonder if you could find yourself at the wrong end of something just for talking on here but that is a whole nother discussion. isn't cyber bullying against the law now?

2)
nice. break it down to name calling like an adult would. that is how things remain civil and friendly.

3)
there are 4 types of board members here.

the 1st one talks about the problems in this thread somethings when they have something to say.
the 2nd type talks about it ALL OF THE TIME and they are on EVERY SINGLE THREAD.
the 3rd kind could care less or refuses to participate in the timeless rehash under a different guise.


now any one of the first 3 types could also be someone of type 4 which is something who does something about the problem. you collectively lump the type 2 people into a classification of people that do something about it as they are "part of the board" by claiming the board has done this and the board has done that.

talking about something until you are blue in the face is not doing something.

you have also almost clumped yourself into that group as someone who DOES do something about it by saying "the board". have you in fact done something about it? if so, then my comments were not to you. were they? they were to all of the type 2ers out there that pound these threads every 30 minutes.

you may have. great. what that was i don't really care, but feel free to share it with everyone. they may be interested in it. we need more people like you then. that was my entire point. the type 2ers that are so convicted that is all they want to talk about should also be the people that get actively involved instead of JUST talking about it. no one wants to hear people say what they should be doing about something from someone that doesn't want to get involved.

if you have not, then do not clump yourself into the group of people who do by saying you are talking about the problem so you are helping. see previous post about doing something about it, as it now does apply to you.

kevin quinn

[Peter_Spaeth]

eat a di** dan.

Edit***
Actually eat a couple of them. Your overweight so I know your hungry all of time.
kevin quinn

And in your next post you are faulting Lichtman for name calling? :confused::confused:

[CMIZ5290]

And in your next post you are faulting Lichtman for name calling? :confused::confused:

Be very careful on name calling with Jeff....;)

[thehoodedcoder]

And in your next post you are faulting Lichtman for name calling? :confused::confused:

quite honestly im tired of his shit. he is a f**king a**hole. im sorry if some of you guys like him but im not going to pretend to.

when unprovoked im a nice guy. but im not going to let him piss in my cerial like the di**head he is.

do you really expect me to just sit here and take that? its not the first time.

sorry. im not going to do it.

kevin quinn

[npa589]

Who is the a-hole? The one asking you if you're an idiot for asking a borderline idiotic question, or the one going off the rails calling the other a blanking this, and blanking that in some internet rant?

I also think you may need to reassess your definition of "doing something". Most would constitute a thread, or multiple threads as you point out, on the most popular "blog" in the hobby a pretty big step in "doing something" to better the hobby, and the core of what is being discussed in the first place.

From what I understand, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have used Net54 as a place to gather information and a sequencing of events when in the process of prosecuting or investigating a matter --- typically one of fraud. I can remember a few occasions, and I am sure other members can substantiate those examples, as well as offer some more from years past, when Leon has mentioned that an FBI agent contacted him over matters that were discussed on the board, because it was where they were first brought to light.

Surely if every thread was sunshine and rainbows, it is palpable that nothing would be """"done"""". If we all attended the same stupid country club that kicked someone out of their schnazzy restaurant for wearing jeans, then maybe we could more easily collaborate in a more "tangible" way, but, until that happens, the internet is a decent means of communication.

[ALR-bishop]

.....reminds me of some Jack Handey Deep Thought

[thehoodedcoder]

Who is the a-hole? The one asking you if you're an idiot for asking a borderline idiotic question, or the one going off the rails calling the other a blanking this, and blanking that in some internet rant?


there is history which im not going to rehash.

i have bit my tounge long enough. my train station runs a tight schedule.

this derailment was warrented.

kevin quinn

[ullmandds]

Uh...barry?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Uh...barry?

Yes indeed. Barry! (It must feel nice to be needed.).:D

[Rollingstone206]

...

[Cardboard Junkie]

and this one....

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xFEqdkO5UI

[npa589]

The preceding three posts are absolutely classic...

I laughed hysterically, except for the Rocky clip --- I wanted to laugh, but it was one of the few occasions where Stallone was in one of his half-decent acting modes.

True story: I once walked into a country club restaurant where they didn't allow jeans, but did allow shorts of any color, so - I asked them, theoretically, if I were to walk in wearing boxers that looked like shorts - if that would be ok. They agreed. So, I took my belt off and literally began to pull my pants down before, ahem, my grandma told me not to - saying we'd go somewhere else.

Best part? There were only 2 other patrons in the restaurant at the time.

[barrysloate]

Uh...barry?

I'm staying out of this. I'll sit quietly and read.:)

[Runscott]

You are from outer space. Just ask the Saco River guy.

You have repeated your scan thoughts probably 6-7 times in this thread. You are still wrong. If taking your argument outside of the earth's gravity clears your head a little, then go for it.

[Runscott]

I know that scans can look different from different scanners, but that is not the issue here. And I still don't think that scans ought to be adjusted, especially with the new scanners like the Canonscan 9000 there is absolutely no reason to adjust. It is not that hard for an auction house to post an accurate scan - Sterling, Mile High, B&L, Just Collect among others do just that. It is really very simple. A nice scanner costs under $200 these days and there is no excuse. Brent H himself said that he had been changing the settings, so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense.

If an auction house created an accurate scan, and it had been adjusted to make it so, you would have no idea. And you have no reason to care other than you seem to like being a pain in the butt, "so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense."

[cyseymour]

If an auction house created an accurate scan, and it had been adjusted to make it so, you would have no idea. And you have no reason to care other than you seem to like being a pain in the butt, "so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense."

It's easy to say, man, and it obviously took you this long to figure out a response. Just go back to post #159 and tell me straight that you don't think the scanner settings have been adjusted on that PWCC card. I don't think you can.

[cyseymour]

Let me just say that as a matter of general record, folks, go back and look at the card in post #159. You can see from the example that, yes, while scanner results may vary, there is no scanner that makes the results look like that. And on top of it, the person who took the scan came onto this very thread and said that he had been changing the settings. What more evidence do you people need?

Anyways, I am done responding to this Runscott character for the time being. Scott, I've met you in real life, and you are a nice guy. But your posts don't resemble much the person who you are in real life. And that's all I've got to say to you at this point. You may have whatever opinion, and all I've got to say is, good luck to you. Peace. -J

[Runscott]

It's easy to say, man, and it obviously took you this long to figure out a response. Just go back to post #159 and tell me straight that you don't think the scanner settings have been adjusted on that PWCC card. I don't think you can.

No, it took me about 5 seconds. I just haven't been spending every waking moment of my day reading your posts. This one will take me a bit longer.

Your comment above, regarding the PWCC card is completely irrelevant, as I am in complete agreement with you that some sellers modify scans to enhance cards and hide defects. That is fraudulent.

I am in disagreement with you over your repeated claim is that NO ONE should adjust scanner settings.

Also, I realize that the thrust of this thread is to discredit PWCC, and I took it off topic by arguing with you about whether or not it's okay to change scanner settings. I've said all I have to say about the subject, and I respect your right to disagree with me.

[cyseymour]

Your comment above, regarding the PWCC card is completely irrelevant, as I am in complete agreement with you that some sellers modify scans to enhance cards and hide defects. That is fraudulent.


I agree with everything you wrote except that the PWCC card is completely irrelevant. Go look at the title of the thread and the original post. In fact, your arguments are irrelevant to this thread. You wrote yourself that you took it off topic. It appears that other than what is or isn't relevant, we don't really disagree on anything at all. Which is actually kind of a relief. Good luck, Scott.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems Scott's only point is that, with some scanners and some items, the factory settings will not provide an accurate representation and therefore some adjustments may be necessary. That seems pretty straightforward to me and it makes sense because my own scanner (part of an all in one) can be very inaccurate on certain colors.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I am in disagreement with you over your repeated claim is that NO ONE should adjust scanner settings.


You're wasting your time, he just doesn't get it. That was my whole point as well - not that the PWCC scan was enhanced or not, but his blanket statement that scanner settings should never be adjusted when scanning a card.

Here is a good example when it is necessary to adjust the settings. Check out the Mays from this auction...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1959-Topps-Baseball-50-Willie-Mays-Card-Hall-of-Famer-SGC-60-EX-5-/360772134939?pt=US_Baseball&hash=item53ffb1e81b#ht_3407wt_1121

The first scan below is the seller's scan. The second one is mine, with some adjustments.

Jamie, do you really think the colors are supposed to look that faded on the seller's scan? No, it's not a good representation of the card. That may be the best the seller can do with their factory settings. That's why it's necessary to sometimes make adjustments. I think my adjumstments are a better representation of the actual card. And really I don't know why I'm even typing all this. You still won't get it, it's like talking to a wall.

[Leon]

I will add my half cent to the scanner setting debate. I have probably done 2000 scans in the last 3-4 yrs. On about 2-3 cards I HAD to adjust settings so the card would look correct in hand, as seen from the scan. All of my scanner settings are always set on default. I have a $200 flatbed Microtek, regular ole scanner. It works great. Very rarely does a scan NEED to be adjusted, but it does happen. My goal is to be as accurate as possible with the scan so when the eventual buyer gets it he doesn't have one of those "Oh Sh**" moments that we all hate. Knock on wood but I don't think I have ever had anyone email about the card not looking like the scan. This card looks the same in hand as it does on screen. Bingo.

[D. Bergin]

Let me just say that as a matter of general record, folks, go back and look at the card in post #159. You can see from the example that, yes, while scanner results may vary, there is no scanner that makes the results look like that. And on top of it, the person who took the scan came onto this very thread and said that he had been changing the settings. What more evidence do you people need?




I went back to post #159 and what I see is two different cards with scans taken by two different scanners? :confused:

[cyseymour]

It seems Scott's only point is that, with some scanners and some items, the factory settings will not provide an accurate representation and therefore some adjustments may be necessary. That seems pretty straightforward to me and it makes sense because my own scanner (part of an all in one) can be very inaccurate on certain colors.

I understand that this is the case. But I believe that with the scanners that are on the market today, the top scanners will take an accurate representation of the card. A scanner like the Canoscan 9000F or the Epson V600 will take a nice scan without need to change/enhance the settings. They cost $200 or less and take a nice looking scan.

It is blatantly obvious that not all scans come out the same on default setting. If they did, there would never be any reason for the companies to create newer, higher tech scanners. The first scanner ever invented would be the same scanner which we would all still be using today because all the scans would look the same.

But what I am talking about is in reference to PWCC auctions and Brent's scans. Anything else is a moot point. Even on the other thread created by Todd, I agreed with Scott and David's arguments. This thread is solely about the scans from PWCC - that's why it was started, and that's what is.

I feel like we really need to give this whole thing a rest. As far as PWCC, goes, I would like to see them use accurate scans, but I have nothing against them. I don't want to see Brent prosecuted or anything like that. But I do worry about corruption and fraud in the hobby on the whole, which includes auction houses juicing scans, which is why I post here.

[jtschantz]

I have no "dog in the fight" here, but some are asking for examples of scans from PWCC vs a "normal" setting on a Canoscan. I won this T207 in last months PWCC auction and scanned it myself with my normal settings. I know this isn't a great example due to the lack of colors on your typical T207, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. My scan is on the right (or bottom) depending on how you are viewing.

[dstudeba]

Leon please sell the E222 to me so I can have it in hand and confirm your statement. There is no other way to gain the board's trust.

[cyseymour]

Let me just make one more point - the reason that I am so against auction houses changing the scanner settings (even to make it more realistic) is that it opens a can of worms and allows any auction house that actually is juicing the scans to use the argument that they are making it more realistic as an excuse for their fraud (when indeed their intent was not to make it more realistic). That is my major concern and why I feel that default settings ought not to be changing (or if they are for a certain card, that ought to be disclosed in the auction description).

And to David J., who is incessantly posting here about topics that have nothing to do with PWCC's scans, about the card you posted from ebay from "houseofcardsmd" - go start your own thread on houseofcardsmd if you don't like their scans or their scanner. It has nothing to do with this thread. Yes, houseofcardsmd seems to be using a lousy scanner. That is their problem, not mine. It has nothing to do with anything about this thread.

And this will hopefully be the last post I make on this thread about this. Because no one seems to actually disagree with my arguments about PWCC. They are just jumping all over some small off-hand statement I made. Yeah, I have my views about how things ought to be done - so what? It has nothing to do with the thread and topic at hand. So please stop jumping all over me, people!

Later!

[vintagetoppsguy]

And to David J., who is incessantly posting here about topics that have nothing to do with PWCC's scans, about the card you posted from ebay from "houseofcardsmd" - go start your own thread on houseofcardsmd if you don't like their scans or their scanner. It has nothing to do with this thread. Yes, houseofcardsmd seems to be using a lousy scanner. That is their problem, not mine. It has nothing to do with anything about this thread.

It may not have anything to do with this thread, but it has everything to do with your blanket comment (in this thread) that scanner settings should never be adjused. I gave you a clear example of why it is necessary to sometimes adjust the settings of a scan. I think most people got it. Obviously it went beyond your level of comprehension. Have a good day.

[cyseymour]

It may not have anything to do with this thread, but it has everything to do with your blanket comment (in this thread) that scanner settings should never be adjused. I gave you a clear example of why it is necessary to sometimes adjust the settings of a scan. I think most people got it. Obviously it went beyond your level of comprehension. Have a good day.

Yeah, and I responded by explaining that with the advanced technology on the new scanners, it isn't necessary to adjust the settings. But that was a statement you have ignored repeatedly, and continued to make the same dogmatic argument over and over again, using examples from places like houseofcardsmd who clearly aren't using a new scanner.

So the whole thing about the new scanners not needing to be adjusted is obviously beyond your level of comprehension.

[vintagetoppsguy]

So the whole thing about the new scanners not needing to be adjusted is obviously beyond your level of comprehension.

Correct, new scanners (assuming you mean those with CCD technology) shouldn't need adjusting.

But, from looking at certain seller's scans, it's obvious they're not all using that type of scanner. They're using scanners with CIS technology. So again, your blanket comment about scanner settings never needing adjustment is STILL WRONG. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

[cyseymour]

Correct, new scanners (assuming you mean those with CCD technology) shouldn't need adjusting.

Finally, you admit it!

But, from looking at certain seller's scans, it's obvious they're not all using that type of scanner. So again, your blanket comment about scanner settings never needing adjustment is STILL WRONG. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

The auction houses should never have to adjust the settings because they should all be using the modern scanners. Duh.

You are an idiot, man.

And stop arguing already. You are clearly one of those people who keeps arguing long after you've been proven to not make any sense.

You must drive your family nuts sometimes. Have a nice life. And thanks for playing. Moron.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Finally, you admit it!

Admit, what? I never said otherwise. My whole point is that not all sellers are using scanners with CCD techonolgy in which case they may have to adjust the settings to get a better representation of the card.


The auction houses should never have to adjust the settings because they should all be using the modern scanners. Duh.

Agreed! Yes, they should all be using scanners with CCD technology. But guess what, Jamie? They not! It's obvious from their scans they're not. So, in some cases they have to adjust the scans to get a better reresentation of the actual card. Is this rocket science to you?

http://kbsrush.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/talking-to-a-brick-wall.jpg

[cyseymour]

My statement wasn't wrong, Jack! The auction houses shouldn't have to change their settings because they all should be using the modern scanners! I've said it a million times!

So if you're wondering why you're bothering to talk to me, I am wondering the same thing - because what you say doesn't make any sense! So shut up already!

[vintagetoppsguy]

My statement wasn't wrong, Jack! The auction houses shouldn't have to change their settings because they all should be using the modern scanners! I've said it a million times!

So if you're wondering why you're bothering to talk to me, I am wondering the same thing - because what you say doesn't make any sense! So shut up already!

Action houses should all be using modern scanner technology (CCD). We both agree on that.

But, not all AHs are using scanners with modern technology (that's obvious from their scans). Can we both agree on that?

If we can agree on the two statements above, then doesn't that make your statment wrong about how scanner settings should never be adjusted? Yes, it does. Several other people have also told you that you are wrong. Funny thing is that nobody (other than you) have told me that I was wrong.

[ullmandds]

Im having jon lovitz flashbacks...jack!!

[cyseymour]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

Here is the initial post I wrote. As you can see, I wrote in that same post -(the very same post) - "Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner."

How hard is it to understand? It's all put right there for you!

[vintagetoppsguy]

How hard is it to understand? It's all put right there for you!

Not hard at all to understand. You are inferring that the settings on a scanner should never be adjusted when scanning a card. Pretty simple to understand.

How hard are these comments to understand...

Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.



You are wrong.


It seems Scott's only point is that, with some scanners and some items, the factory settings will not provide an accurate representation and therefore some adjustments may be necessary. That seems pretty straightforward to me and it makes sense because my own scanner (part of an all in one) can be very inaccurate on certain colors. I don't mean to speak for Peter, but I belive he's agreeing that it's sometimes necessary to adjust the settings to get an accurate representation of a card.


I will add my half cent to the scanner setting debate. I have probably done 2000 scans in the last 3-4 yrs. On about 2-3 cards I HAD to adjust settings so the card would look correct in hand, as seen from the scan. I think Leon is saying the same thing as well (but I don't mean to speak for him either).

[Peter_Spaeth]

The odd thing about this argument is that there is complete consensus on the fundamental points.

[frankbmd]

The odd thing about this argument is that there is complete consensus on the fundamental points.


If you can agree to disagree,
I suppose you can disagree to agree.

[cyseymour]

You said yourself in post #210 that the new scanners shouldn't need adjusting. Leon said that he needed to adjust his scans 0.1% of the time for a scanner that he's used 2000 times over the last 3-4 years, meaning it isn't even the newest of scanners. My initial post, which you keep arguing, is only referring to what the auction houses ought to do, and I have given my reasons countless times. Your arguments have been proven baseless.

[cyseymour]

The odd thing about this argument is that there is complete consensus on the fundamental points.

Yes! The argument is about nothing! Could be a Seinfeld episode!

[Leon]

If you can agree to disagree,
I suppose you can disagree to agree.

Can we argue to agree to agree? That is the question!!

[drcy]

An auction description is a combination of picture(s) and word description. It's not just the scan. Only the seller has both the picture and the physical card, and should put any big discrepancies in the description.

When I first started selling online, my digital camera often made the card or whatever look different than the card I had in my hand-- often for the worse! Numerous times I noted that the card looks better than the picture.

Perhaps of interesting side note, a problem in at east older computer printing is that the picture on the printed page often was different in tone/color than the picture on the computer screen. There was software to help make them the same.

[Runscott]

...and I have given my reasons countless times.

Why do you feel the need to do that? If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they didn't 'hear' you the first five or six times. It means they disagree with you.

[Cardboard Junkie]

I would just like to go on record as agreeing, or disagreeing, whichever you prefer. :) Dave.

[ValKehl]

Leon please sell the E222 to me so I can have it in hand and confirm your statement. There is no other way to gain the board's trust.

Leon, if you will sell this E222 to me, I'll even throw in a 1931 Leader Theatre advertising card!! :D
Val

[Runscott]

I can only remember having to tweak scans for slabbed cards i.e.-raw cards and photos were fine with default settings.

[HRBAKER]

Just don't start twerking your scans.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I can only remember having to tweak scans for slabbed cards i.e.-raw cards and photos were fine with default settings.

Scott,

Same here. I was discussing this with another board member last night via PM. Here's why that is. There are basically two types of scanner technology:

CIS (Contact Image Sensor) - these are good if you're only scanning flat items such as raw cards, photos, magazine articles, etc - items that lay flat, directly on the scanner bed.

CCD (Charge Coupled Device) - these are good for slabbed cards or anything that doesn't lay directly on the scanner bed. Yes, the plastic slab itself does, but the card is elevated from the bed because of the slab.

That's why if you're scanning a BGS/BVG card with CIS technology, it is blurry because the those slabs are so thick. Get a CCD scanner and the problem goes away.

So, anyone using a scanner with CIS technology may have to tweak the settings to get a good representation of the actual card.

[cyseymour]

I have no "dog in the fight" here, but some are asking for examples of scans from PWCC vs a "normal" setting on a Canoscan. I won this T207 in last months PWCC auction and scanned it myself with my normal settings. I know this isn't a great example due to the lack of colors on your typical T207, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. My scan is on the right (or bottom) depending on how you are viewing.

I didn't have a chance to respond to this earlier, but based on your example of this T207, it is clear that, whatever may have happened in the past with PWCC auctions, via accusations from CU and members of this board, that it is clearly no longer a problem. That doesn't stop it from being a hobby-wide concern, but as far as I am concerned, it seems that Brent has rectified the problems concerning his scans, at least in last month's auction. For that, I am thankful and congratulate him for his responsiveness.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree his scans look more reasonable than before, but I think they may still be a bit too bright, if this is an example.

[sam majors]

Hell, it's plain to see that the correct answer is maybe yes or probably not! Sam Majors ;) ;) ;)

[dstudeba]

Val and I agree to agree that Leon should part with his E222.

Hi Val. :)

[Leon]

Val and I agree to agree that Leon should part with his E222.

Hi Val. :)

Well, I can agree to disagree with ya'lls double agreement. :eek:

[cyseymour]

I agree his scans look more reasonable than before, but I think they may still be a bit too bright, if this is an example.

Peter, I'm not sure it is a valid example for a couple of reasons: a) you are comparing two different cards (one is more beaten than the other), and b) those scans were likely taken by different scanners. The first scan could be a CIS scan.

I think the T207 was more solid comparison because it compared the same exact card with a known scanner (Canoscan) to the PWCC scan. In fact the Canoscan came up brighter.

It's still possible that PWCC is increasing the brightness, and in fact in your example that card looks somewhat bright, but not to the extent where it is blatant. So I don't think your example proves much one way or the other.

[Eric72]

I loathe to tread within this thread; however, do have an opinion to offer. Anyone who takes consignments has a duty to accurately represent the items being offered. This applies to both images and text.

As for shilling, there should be a zero tolerance policy for this sort of illegal behavior. Anyone who makes a living through selling other people's property should be taken to task if not doing things properly; on this board, in the court of public opinion, and a court of law...if a fraudulent sale occurs.

Just my two cents. My full name appears in my signature.

Best Regards,

Eric

[npa589]

A solution for all scanners that simply don't behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fjsSr3z5nVk#t=38

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter, I'm not sure it is a valid example for a couple of reasons: a) you are comparing two different cards (one is more beaten than the other), and b) those scans were likely taken by different scanners. The first scan could be a CIS scan.

I think the T207 was more solid comparison because it compared the same exact card with a known scanner (Canoscan) to the PWCC scan. In fact the Canoscan came up brighter.

It's still possible that PWCC is increasing the brightness, and in fact in your example that card looks somewhat bright, but not to the extent where it is blatant. So I don't think your example proves much one way or the other.

Another one at random. October 10.

[Runscott]

Scott,

Same here. I was discussing this with another board member last night via PM. Here's why that is. There are basically two types of scanner technology:

CIS (Contact Image Sensor) - these are good if you're only scanning flat items such as raw cards, photos, magazine articles, etc - items that lay flat, directly on the scanner bed.

CCD (Charge Coupled Device) - these are good for slabbed cards or anything that doesn't lay directly on the scanner bed. Yes, the plastic slab itself does, but the card is elevated from the bed because of the slab.

That's why if you're scanning a BGS/BVG card with CIS technology, it is blurry because the those slabs are so thick. Get a CCD scanner and the problem goes away.

So, anyone using a scanner with CIS technology may have to tweak the settings to get a good representation of the actual card.

Yes, I know. I have both scanner types. My slabbed cards still require adjustments - yes, scans are crisp and clear using CCD for slabs, but contrast and color are sometimes off. If anyone who has bought a slabbed card from me thinks my scans look freaky, just say so and I'll rethink things.

[calvindog]

but as far as I am concerned, it seems that Brent has rectified the problems concerning his scans, at least in last month's auction. For that, I am thankful and congratulate him for his responsiveness.

Agreed. Congratulations Brent for committing fraud, getting caught, lying about fraud, getting caught lying about fraud, and finally toning down the fraud a bit.

Oh -- and we haven't gotten to the possible shill bidding and massive bid retractions yet.

[nolemmings]

Bamberger cards are all over the place and again, the two shown are different and almost certainly the product of two different scanners. Here are three more on Ebay that I "randomly" picked. Do they look more like PWCCs scan or the other one selected by our objective reporter? Also, search 1959 Bamberger and see the variety of tones exhibited.


http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1959-Topps-529-George-Bamberger-Deans-Cards-4-VG-EX-7226-/00/s/MTEyMFg4MjA=/z/tlMAAOxyhTFSTlCq/$T2eC16JHJHEFFl0vrI0uBSTlCnbckQ~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1959-Topps-529-George-Bamberger-Deans-Cards-4-VG-EX-2446-/00/s/MTExM1g4MjY=/z/6tEAAOxyBXNSVv0I/$T2eC16Z,!)wFIYpIkg+YBSVv0Ij3h!~~60_57.JPG
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/1959-TOPPS-529-GEORGE-BAMBERGER-WB-EXMT-90319-/00/s/ODgxWDU4NQ==/z/THQAAOxy4XNSSYbi/$(KGrHqJ,!nwFIuFrlhWPBSSYbhe7(g~~60_57.JPG

[Peter_Spaeth]

Todd, lots of scans are not accurate. I compared it with one that in my experience looks like the card. I do not believe the color varies that much on the actual card. And look at the flip on the PSA Bamberger. My flips do not look nearly that bright in person. Do yours? That one almost glows. The scan is too bright, in my opinion.

[nolemmings]

Peter, why don't you just give Brent the Monty Python test and ask him if he weighs the same as a duck? IMO It's a far more accurate and entertaining witch hunt than the one you keep dragging along here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

No witch hunt, Todd. Someone posted he thought Brent had fixed the issue with his scans glowing too brightly (the issue Brent claimed here he had never heard about yet had posted a vehement denial many months ago). I looked at some recent auctions, and in my opinion they are still too bright. If you disagree with my opinion and your flips glow that brightly, that's cool.

[cyseymour]

Todd, lots of scans are not accurate. I compared it with one that in my experience looks like the card. I do not believe the color varies that much on the actual card. And look at the flip on the PSA Bamberger. My flips do not look nearly that bright in person. Do yours? That one almost glows. The scan is too bright, in my opinion.

I compared the PWCC Bamberger to the PWCC T207. On both flips, the red shows up a bit bright. That is true. It is bright compared to the Canoscan T207, as well. So Peter may have a point here that the scans are still being brightened, just not as egregiously as before.

Soon we could be living in a world where cards are partly identified by their scans. Instead of buying a "52 Topps Mickey Mantle PSA 8", you could be buying a "Canoscan 9900F 52 Topps Mantle PSA 8 Hue +6, Brightness +10 with minor color adjustments".

[cyseymour]

Agreed. Congratulations Brent for committing fraud, getting caught, lying about fraud, getting caught lying about fraud, and finally toning down the fraud a bit.

Oh -- and we haven't gotten to the possible shill bidding and massive bid retractions yet.

At least he is showing initiative.

[slipk1068]

Won this card 9/29/2013 in a PWCC auction. 1st scan is the PWCC scan, 2nd scan I just made 5 minutes ago.

I saved the PWCC scan as a JPEG. My scan is using a Cannon MX870 scanner 300dpi. All I did was put the card in the scanner and switch from "Black and White Documents" to "Color Photo" then saved it as a JPEG.

A fellow board member (Donk) once implied that I altered a scan of a $10 card I was auctioning on Net54, so consider that when comparing the 2 if you choose to believe I (or anyone) would alter a scan to sell a $10 poor condition T206.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[slipk1068]

Does this one qualify??



http://tinyurl.com/k3d63f8

same dude..........underbidder

http://tinyurl.com/lkvfruk

PWCC scan looks fine to me in my example. This is a bigger issue.

[JoeyF1981]

Just don't start twerking your scans.

lmao

[slipk1068]

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=350846238664


Does anyone believe this bid history looks legit?