It's not that they're arguing about nothing, it's that nothing will come from it.

Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.

Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down.

No one is talking about mandating auction-wide scanner rules. No one here even has the authority to do that. But pressuring auction houses to disclose their scanning policies, not change their settings, and put it in their terms is doable.

Pressuring companies to disclose policies is not a new tactic. Companies are often pressured to disclose labor practices, political donations, carbon-footprint information, among other things.

Will increased disclosure stop fraud? No, but it could slow it down - just like lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments. And pressuring for disclosure and prosecution don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be done in conjunction.

Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either.

Ask anyone who's ever been indicted how much they enjoyed the experience, win or lose.

Good luck getting them to prosecute, though. They would most likely view PWCC as small-time. The worst you have against them right now is a scan of a $500 hockey card. That's a far cry from a trimmed PSA 8 t206 Wagner.

Thousands of examples of ebay fraud have been posted on this message board, and how many of them have been prosecuted by the feds? Very few, if any. Can't see how PWCC would be any different.

My guess is that if the feds were going to prosecute anyone about scan enhancing, it would be one of the larger auction houses selling big-ticket items, not a small-time ebay outfit.

I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.

Why do you keep going back to the same argument about AHs not changing their scanner settings? If an auction house can provide a scan that is an exact representation of a card with a $20 scanner they have to tweak a bit (change the scanner settings), why do you care? What does it matter as long as it's an exact represenation?

I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it."

As far as I can tell, no prosecutorial body has been overly enthusiastic about combating ebay fraud. That might be because ebay is a $50billion business with shareholders who include hedge funds and billionaires, and those people don't want to see lawsuits regarding ebay in the news since it is bad P.R. for ebay. If the worst example you have is a $500 hockey card, then the $500 hockey card is 1/100,000,000th of the assets of ebay. To say that you are financially over-matched is to be putting it mildly.

I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....

LOL why are you discussing something of which you have no idea? Do you think prosecutors simply take as evidence just what people on Net 54 dig up? Or do they send out subpoenas and conduct an investigation? Do you think that a red dot on a single card is the iceberg itself or just the tip?

My guess is that eBay doesn't care. They would probably tell us that is what Buyer Protection is for - if a card in hand doesn't match the scan in the listing, then send it back.

It is a moot point because the auction houses already own and use CCD scanners.

Well, you're the legal genius. If not the feds, then what prosecutorial body is going to investigate this?

Sorry, I'm off to federal court to do a hobby-related sentencing for fraud. After you spend another night in a Holiday Inn Express I'm sure the answer will come to you. Again.

That sounds a lot like you don't know.

Yeah, it would be tough for a criminal lawyer who practices in federal and state courts all over the country to be able to list the law enforcement offices which prosecute fraud. Why don't you stick to what you know -- whatever it is you've been repeating for the past 9000 posts on this and the other PWCC thread?

I will help you out with a few....Postal Inspectors, local law enforcement., Secret Service, Dept. of Homeland Security.....and as you mentioned (I think) the FBI.....

And if you find fraud, spread wide enough, then some of these agencies would be interested. They won't be as interested in a particular event unless it's a big one. And as taxpayers we wouldn't want them investigating every $100 fraud.

I do agree ebay does very little, from what I have seen, to prevent fraud on their site.

But who, specifically, do you think we ought to call? You having been repeatedly urging us to take action. Which specific action should we take? You're the criminal lawyer, so you'd know better than any of us who to call, right?

Well, so far we have proof of fraud on one $653 hockey card. But the fraud isn't for $653, it's for the difference in sale price between the time it sold without the dot and the time it sold with the dot. $653 minus $542.73 equals $110.27 worth of fraud.

I've been told by the FBI that they won't bother with anything under 20k worth of fraud, so we have a long way to go there. As for postal inspectors, I doubt they are interested in ebay scans. We can cross that off the list. The Dept of Homeland Security just deals with things coming into the country, so that's a no.

So does that only leaves PWCC's local police department as our only option? I agree with Leon, it's hard to imagine bothering anyone over $110.27 worth of fraud.

Unless I missed it, nobody mentioned anything about monitors. I use a Samsung 26" HD monitor with my PC. I also have a notebook, tablet and smartphone and I am sure the same scan will look different on each one. While I agree the scan should accurately represent the card that doesn't mean the person with a crappy monitor will view it as such.

Do you mean that the same scan would look different on your Samsung 26" HD monitor than it would on my monitor pictured below? :D

http://www.knysnawebsitedesign.co.za...onitor-Old.jpg

It is hard to compete with a Franklin monitor. :D

I'm personally tired of hearing this statement made, that because an Ebay consignment seller sells/posts and has to scan soooo many items that they can't realistically QA/QC each and every scan. That is the biggest bunch of BS. If they can't complete what should be one of the basic tasks of their business then they need to rethink and re-evaluate how they operate their business. Of course, they won't be pressured to change until something begins to effect their bottom line.

I do have a new suggestion though that I believe could greatly improve the relationship between the scans posted and the actual condition of the cards themselves in regards to scanner settings. If every scan would simply include a "proof color strip" that shows the basic RGB colors (red, green, blue, white and black) on a strip of paper next to the card itself on the scanner bed. A quick glance at the proof strip would allow the viewer to quickly determine if the scanner settings have been modified, if black or any other colors look washed out on the proof strip, the viewer knows the scan is washed out or some other settings have been modified to try to improve the scans appearance.

Now granted this does not eliminate flat deception from Photoshop editing, but I think it would go a long way in improving most scans where scanner settings are involved.

Yes, the 'ol we're too big/busy to do things right excuse.

Actually, 20k, from my experience, wouldn't make an FBI investigative list. On the other hand, Postal Inspectors, will be interested in ebay stuff as almost everything (with some exceptions) gets sent through the email. But, no, I don't see them investigating $100 of fraud specifically. With Secret Service and Homeland Security, they get interested in the forgeries, monies used for them and international stuff...and there are a lot of those things to look at. I have spoken with each of the agencies I have listed, more than once. I applaud law enforcement for helping us...

Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation. The question is whether this is outright fraud, negligence or just a human mistake. For example, I sell cards on ebay on the side. I scan the front and back of each card using my CanoScan 8600F at 300 dpi, with default settings. Then I create the ebay listings using Turbolister. When I create the listings, I look at the card, and note in the ebay description any imperfections in the card that need to be pointed out, like creases, wrinkles, marks, etc. Then I move on to the next listing. I don't check to make sure every imperfection that I saw in the card was caught in the scan. I have three kids and a real job. I don't have time for this. There was one time when shipping a sold card, where I noticed that there was a crease in the card that could only be seen at an angle. I think it was a PSA 3, so by chance I thought, wow, was this card overgraded, and I checked the scan in the ebay listing, and noticed that this crease did not show up in the scan. I took a photo of the card at that angle where the crease could be seen, and then I mailed the buyer this photo, and told him about the situation, and that I would completely understand if he wanted to cancel the transaction. If he still wanted to keep the card, I would take 40% off the sold price. He decided to keep the card and take the discount. However, it was purely by chance that I caught this. A bunch of other cards could have been shipped by me that had the same problem, but were not caught. On the flip side, there was one time that I purchased a card from Howard (buythatcard). There was a mark in the card that was clearly in the scan, but not in the description. When I saw the mark, I couldn't believe that I missed it, so I messaged Howard, and he allowed the full return no questions asked. That's the point with ebay, however much we dislike it. Ebay through the Top Rated Seller rules, tries to push for allowing 14 day returns on all items. So if you get the item and don't like it, just return it. If you don't think that what you received didn't match the seller's description or scan, ding his DSR's (Detailed Seller Ratings). You can say well, if I ding this guy, it won't make a difference, but for me as a seller, I can only receive 2 ratings of 1-2 in a DSR category per YEAR, or I will lose my Top Rated Seller rating. So if three buyers say that my scan or description did not match what they received, then I lose my rating that 20% fee discount that goes with it. And obviously, the last part of this is that if the ebay seller refuses the return, you can log a SNAD case with them for ebay to decide. In the case of the missing print dot, I'm pretty sure ebay would rule in the buyer's favor. Again, if PWCC is doing mass alterations of their scans, that's completely wrong. In no way am I advocating that. Nor am I saying it's okay to make their scans look brighter or wipe away flaws. If they are doing that deliberately, it's obviously wrong. However, I don't think people can expect perfection here.

Gary,

I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO.

It may also be worth noting that far more often than not, in order to get good visual fidelity, you need to adjust the settings on electronic components from their default states. This goes for TVs, computer monitors, cameras, scanners, etc.

People that use those items for their business or for a serious hobby almost never leave their devices in their default states.

So PWCC saying that they do change their settings doesnt indicate that they are adjusting the image to make it look better than what it looks like in reality.

+1
Precisely!!

Our prisons are full of people who made mistakes.

Gary,

Critical in your post and in your conduct is that you note imperfections in the auction listing. I am satisfied if the listing notes creases and wrinkles even if they're hard to see or cannot be seen in the scan. This often happens with T213-2s, although that set is one of the few that is so rife with creases, most of them hard to see, that you probably should assume they are there.

I have been told that I should expect to find small creases in cards graded 4 because the TPGs allow for them in their stated graded policies. Well most as in nearly all of the 4s I own do not have such creases, and the Altoona Baker I showed on the other thread was worthy of a 4 without the crease, IMO ( I would grade it a 3 or 3.5 now). If I should expect to find them, why is it the seller shouldn't expect to look for them once he sees the grade assigned, and then identify them in the listing?

I'd say I agree with this. This is not acceptable in other industries, why here. If your making errors, maybe the volume is too big and something needs to change.

I would like AHs making it known how they scan their items. It would just be something to tie to the card and possibly provide some more info on the card. I really don't care how they do it, just make it as representative as possible.

The scans below are the same card, left has the default and the right has 2 modifications. The one on the right is far closer to the real card as it doesn't "glow" like the other scan.

This reply, my first in either thread on this topic, is not intended to dispute the existence of a scan problem. However, focusing solely on the scanner and its quality and settings is akin to talking only about the mayo used to make a BLT. Multiple scanners with identical settings WILL generate scans nearly identical. Unfortunately, on the home front, monitor quality, settings, and size will offer varying scan results. Factor in the lighting in the room, the individual's eyesight and color recognition and you will find that any scan deemed perfect by one will possibly be deemed flawed by another. The ONLY answer is a "No Questions Asked, Satisfaction Guaranteed, Full Money Refund Policy". I shall now retreat to the shadows of my ill-lit computer den and squint, awaiting the next post.:)

Maybe in addition to buyers requiring all sellers of cards to use the exact same scanner using the exact same settings, sellers can require all buyers to have the exact same monitor, video card, and operating system. Requiring a certified eye exam, while desirable, is just too silly. :rolleyes:

Gary, you must have gotten some great prices on your consignments with PWCC. You're twisting yourself into a pretzel defending some pretty obvious fraud.

Only human?
 

There are days, thru my eyes, when my collection looks NM-MT :):)and other days when it looks only EX-MTor worse.:(:( Do scanners have bad days too?

Huh, just the other day I had the same thought...except some days they look Gd/Vg and other days when it looks like crap...

I wish. I think I only did well on that Exhibits Cobb that you won.

As far as I can tell, we haven't done a single thing to rectify the problem. All we've done is hold a massive kangaroo court with a bunch of people snapping at each other. We've got a lawyer who thinks that everyone ought to complain to law enforcement, but if you ask him specifically whom we ought to call, he can't tell you. He won't say. So we have reached the point where absolutely nothing has been done except create three threads that are a basically just a bunch of people bickering with each other about scans and scanners. Maybe that's because no one other than us even cares about this. Maybe law enforcement isn't the least bit interested, and this whole thing has been nothing more than a source of entertainment.

I agree, a whole lot of entertainment....Brent's laughing all the way to the bank....

Does anyone know how many Rocky movies there were?

FYI - a seventh is being planned.:eek:

There ya go Frank, defusing an argument about nothing that is gonna change, with a question that requires too much thought for a Friday night.:D

Yes Jamie. That's what is called due process. If you've been scammed report it. The authorities will investigate, or not depending on how solid your complaint is. "Some guy cheated some other guy out of $100 over the internet" Probably isn't going to go far. They have to balance the cost of investigating with the end result. And they need more than our saved copies of scans to make it stick.

Jeff L - Please correct me if I have any of this wrong.

I'm assuming the cost of making the case and seeing it through would be .....A lot, at least by my standards.

Frankly, while I think altering scans to get a few extra bucks is very wrong and not at all smart (Because eventually someone will add up all the times it was likely done and see a nice number to go after) I'd rather see the FBI and even the local PD spend their time on the people doing far worse things.

Steve B

That's ok, Gary, I had a better year than you -- by the end of January.

There is not a lot we can do as a group. However, we can do our own individual part. I made a commitment not to bid on any of Probstein's auctions after it was discovered he was protecting shill bidders. I have honored that commitment. It's been hard as I've seen some cards that I wanted to bid on, but I refrained from doing so. As I mentioned in the other thread, I don't bid on Brent's stuff anyway. So, I feel like I'm doing my part by not giving them any of my business.

If what has been brought to light bothers anyone, they can choose not to do business with these guys. If they continue to do business with them, then they have no right to complain. Right?

Jamie, three people who sold fraudulent game used jerseys were sentenced today to jail time in a federal court in Rockford, IL. Again, as usual, you're clueless. Of course that won't stop you from typing up every thought that crosses your brain. Law enforcement reads not only Net 54 but this thread -- and yes, they're laughing at you as well.

Again at the end of the day you are ultimately responsible for what you do. If you think something smells and you continue to bid anyway then I guess it didn't really bother you that much did it. It's good to know when you think this stuff goes on so you can make a personal decision about who to and not to do business with.

I don't think even "we" care enough to make a stand. How many people here (among those who believe this auctioneer has some serious issues that have yet to be addressed) would refuse to bid with him or consign to him? I hope I am wrong but my presumption is that most people are not wiling to take a stand if it means any degree of sacrifice including passing on a baseball card they want.

Unless Brent is prosecuted, then I'd say that you're the one who is clueless, Jeff. Because if law enforcement is reading this, and they don't prosecute Brent, then clearly they are laughing at you.

You're never going to get a boycott of an auction house unless it's a de facto boycott because everyone is terrified that they won't get their cards or consignment checks as what occurred to one poster who consigned with Legendary and got stiffed. If there is enough easily noticed fraud or funny business with an auction house, some law enforcement body will investigate. Doesn't have to be the feds. Keep in mind that there are NUMEROUS investigations going on right now of auction houses in our hobby. Just because they're not public doesn't mean that they don't exist. People are going to prison. Auction house principles have been sued for fraud. Consignors who have conspired with auction houses to defraud bidders have been successfully sued or have reached out of court settlements. The bottom line is, as victims here we have more power than we think. Don't be so quick to assume everyone is getting away with it, they're not.