pwcc (part two)
 

Last night I had someone contact me with some information about PWCC doctoring their auction scans. He said that he would provide me proof, but also asked for anonymity. I promised him such.

Take a look at the 1951 Parkhurst Hockey Milt Schmidt cards below. They are the same card, same serial number. Notice how the red print dot (to the right of his head) is missing from the first scan, but is visible in the second scan. Here’s is the card history:

PWCC first sold this card in August 2012 for $653. Here is a link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=249611

In this auction, the red print dot is missing. The scan has been touched up to remove it.

**************************************************
PWCC sold the same card once again just recently, this time selling for $542.73. Here is the link:

http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=496377

Perhaps the first buyer received the card and didn’t like it feeling it was misrepresented and returned it for a refund (I can only speculate), but for whatever reason PWCC ended up with the card once again. The second buyer now has it listed in his eBay store and the red dot is clearly visible...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-PARKHUR...#ht_111wt_1121

There is, to me at least, a difference in tweaking a scan so that it is a closer representation of the actual card versus editing a scan to cover up a known defect.

Thoughts anyone?

Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?

Again, there is a difference (at least to me) in doctoring scans to make a card more aesthetically pleasing (adding color) versus doctoring scans to hide flaws within the card. Yes, both are wrong, but I think the latter of the two is way more deceptive. Until now, I’ve only seen where he added color to make his scans appear more brighter. This shows he doctors scans to hide flaws within the card.

Agree completely on removing a print dot. Contrast/Hue/etc is one thing and might be explained away in a few circumstances. If the above is true, very indicting...........

Again, I'm a known consignor to PWCC, so it is what it is. However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").

If I am the seller of the card and I saw that a setting I had turned on removed a significant flaw like the one above, I scan the card again, until it shows up properly.

As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.

Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings.

The choice is yours, folks.

Well, I don't know if that's entirely fair. PWCC has thousands of cards that they scan. I remember (and now it seems so long ago) when people used to say that PWCC was one of the better auction houses in the business because they always provided large scans of both of front and back of cards. When they sell complete sets or near sets, they provide scans of an extraordinary number of cards, I would say more than any other auction house in the business including those who issue auction catalogs. You can't expect them to view every single auction closely to see the scan matches perfectly. What they do is they scan the items for the consignors, and then they allow the consignors to preview the items before they go live on ebay. If the consignors find any issues, then they report it to PWCC where they can make the necessary corrections. True story, this was one of my past consignments to PWCC: Link When I saw the scan, I told Brent from PWCC that I thought the scan looked bad, and much worse compared to the Legendary auction scan where I bought the item from: Link. I told him the Legendary scan was much closer to what the actual item looked like. However, Brent basically told me that scan was the best they could do for a large item like that. I mean if there were any items to be touched up or photoshopped, you would have thought that he would have at least done something there, but he didn't do anything to make it appear better. Again, I'm not saying that PWCC is completely innocent as I don't know everything that goes on at PWCC. However, I don't know if I see a smoking gun yet.

I've seen exactly what you're talking about in reference to the PSA flips, but I don't think that is the case here. If he had the dust filter turned on, why would it only remove that big red print dot and not other things - e.g. any of the punctuation (dots or commas) at the bottom of the card that is even smaller and even more resembling of dust?

How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?

Let me get this straight - are you saying that we should all agree that no one is allowed go change scanner settings? Please clarify, because I am not sure what your position is.

How about just shortening your statement to: "we can demand accountability and ensure that...we are receiving...an accurate scan."

Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it.

I understand your point, but I am referring to auction houses that do hundreds of thousands of dollars of business each year. They can afford a high-quality CCD scanner. I have not seen examples where those scanners do not take accurate scans.

Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan. But my concern is that what can be deemed "accurate" is so subjective, that it allows auction houses to use attempts at "accuracy" as an excuse for adjusting their scans in fraudulent ways that are wholly inaccurate and enhance the image of the card.

Maybe some can argue that even the newest CCD scanners are not 100% accurate. But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that their idea of "accuracy" basically means brightening the hues and strengthening the contrast in order to enhance the card's image for prospective bidders (juicing the scan) instead of a genuine attempt at accuracy.

Well-said, Lance.

We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans.

Or they could just put it in their terms so that they are legally obligated use the default settings, as I suggested 200 posts ago on the other thread.

Perfectly stated

'Suspise' = to suspect and despise. I love this new word.

I know. I heard you. And when you say it again, I will hear you again.

I had assumed you were being sarcastic in post #14. If you weren't, I apologize.

It was jestful sarcasm. Still, there isn't any need to apologize - it's good to know that you realize that you have been repeating yourself, and I completely understand the approach: if you repeat yourself enough times, the people who you are talking with will eventually realize how obvious it is that you have been correct all along, and they will change their minds.

But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree.

Theoretically speaking, if one were so inclined, and it was intentional rather than "unintentional" due to some obscure scanner setting, then one could open it in paint as a very large scan, select the color immediately around it with any "paint drop" tool from MSPaint, or nearly any image editor, and then use a small paintbrush tool to paint over the red dot.

I get no enjoyment out of repeating myself over and over again, but Scott, if you continue to be sarcastic, the trouble is, not everyone has read all those other posts. Not everyone retains information as well as you, either.

I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not.

And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree.

You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution?

The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.

The trouble is that the boycott approach doesn't seem to work. Because if the AH's have cards that collectors want, they bid anyways, because if the item is rare it might be their only opportunity to get that item for a long time, if ever.

Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.

Those two scans aren't looking good.

But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing.
That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab.

I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest. :)

So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?)
Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok.

Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner.

Jamie, now you are just being a jerk. If you think that all of my remarks have been sarcastic, then you haven't been reading my posts. The fact that at this point in the discussion you still "have no idea what [I] know or don't know" indicates that I have been wasting my time responding to you. We'll talk again, I'm sure, but not on this subject.

Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it :D

Scott, you are endlessly misrepresenting my views. That's why I need to continuously repeat myself. Never did I say that "all your remarks have been sarcastic".

And I also noticed you evaded my question on how to find a solution to the fraud.

To just say "you are wrong" and write sarcastic remarks without providing constructive criticism and constructive solutions is cowardly behavior.

Except that I did realize it.

The "Eyes Wide Shut" approach.

The fraudsters are counting on people's collective indifference, and they are right.

Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.

Right, but if an opening bid is 1/4 of a card's value, then someone is going to put a bid in, no matter what. The boycott approach has been tried and hasn't worked, so I think we are trying to come up with a Plan B.

Guys, we all agree that there is a problem, but holy crap! This is overkill, what in the hell constructive is going to come of this? You can bet your ass Ebay is not going to do a damn thing....

Keep doin' what you do and you'll keep gettin' what you get.
I hope your Plan B works out.

Thanks.

Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.

Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan? Or from stating certain scanning parameters but not actually following them? You're imagining the scanner and its settings as the only means a dishonest seller has to alter their card images, and assuming that if you can control that one aspect, you can bring them back in line, when the reality is that manipulating the scan settings is about the least subtle way one could alter card images.

You can make all the rules you want, but if a seller has determined that deception is an acceptable selling tool, mandating scanners/scan settings won't rectify that.

It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011.
http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...lotIdNo=240002

"Crooks will be crooks" - That, my friend, is a philosophy of complacency, and it solves nothing. No one ever changed the world by being complacent.


They could do that, but then it would be indefensible in a court of law because the scan could be retaken using the same technology they outlined in their terms. Since the results would differ, it would be proof that they committed the fraud.

+1

Has anyone even contacted Ebay about these accusations?

What would be even better in court would be to compare the scan to the actual card and show how it was misrepresented. This has the added benefit of not hampering every seller with what you incorrectly assume is a universal imaging solution.

I like how you tell Jeff his solution of not doing business with crooked sellers is not workable, but requiring all sellers to use the same scanner on the same settings is. :rolleyes:

Who said anything about being complacent? I actually really like Jeff's idea of not doing business with known crooks. I am also in the habit of holding newfound crooks accountable when what they deliver doesn't match up to what was shown/described. I don't need to know what their scanner/settings are for that.

It wouldn't be better because it wouldn't prove whether the problem was the performance of the scanner itself or fraud committed by the auctioneer.

I never said that they all ought to use the same scanner, just that they ought to own a scanner with modern technology and keep the settings on default.

Did you know that what you are referring to as modern technology (CCD) technology actually predates CIS technology? CIS technology is fairly recent. CCD technology first came out in 1969 (I believe).

Oy, vey. Gentlemen, part one was painful enough to read.

Should the focus be whether or not default scanner settings are the way to go - or - whether or not an accurate scan is appropriate?

As it pertains to the OP (in this thread) questioning a disappearing dot on the Mint 9 hockey card, I strongly feel as though some sort of shenanigans were in order there. It seems to be clear fraud to me. I may be mistaken.

Best Regards,

Eric

That is an interesting piece of trivia, but maybe at that time CCD wasn't affordable. Nowadays, thanks to advances in CCD technology, clearly it is. So it is still modern technology. But even if it weren't, the larger point is that it is superior to the CIS for graded cards and ought to be used by the auction houses for their scans.

Frankly, I would bet that almost all auction houses already do use it at this point.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You keep talking about "modern" scanners and assuming they all come with the same "default" settings, when that is not the case. If you're not going to require everyone to use the same model of scanner, your premise is flawed from the start. In your court scenario, the first thing they would ask is, "Was the same scanner used to produce both the auction house scan and the scan you made at home?" It's ridiculous.

Seriously, how many different scanners have you used?

Eric, I agree, it has been painful. To answer your question, most people here, including vintagetoppsguy, believe that the CCD scanners are good enough under their default settings to get an accurate scan. So it doesn't have to be an "or" question.

Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing. Or just writing snarky comments.

Obviously, the prosecution would use the same scanner!

Thanks, that does make it clear the scan was altered.

Steve B

+1

...and on two concurrent threads no less.

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.