More on the subject of seller/auction house scans
 

With questions about seller and auction house scans still lingering in another thread, I thought it topical to ask more generally what scan settings you believe should be used by these folks and what reliance you place on scans when bidding. Below are two Home Run Baker cards that I have won this year, each of which has a small wrinkle or two. The scans I am using here were used by the Ebay seller Probstein and Auction house Goodwin– I will show my scans later. I do not mean to call out these businesses but the cards are easily traced anyway.

The first has a wrinkle from one border slightly into the background on the front, and both have two light wrinkles on the back. No wrinkles were disclosed in the descriptions. Can you spot them? Because I missed them.
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...llaneous/1.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...llaneous/2.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...llaneous/3.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...eous/baker.jpg

Again, I will show my scans in awhile, which were taken at 300 dpi. All of my scans are taken at that setting, and I do not adjust a single characteristic--brightness, sharpness, etc. In fact, my scan of the Altoona Baker will likely show the back slightly darker/duller than real life simply because I scanned it with the lid up (same as on all my cards) during daylight as opposed to during evening with an overhead ceiling light.

Todd, in the first scan of Baker, I think I am seeing the wrinkle. From the right border extending horizontally to slightly above his left knee. I'm looking in Photoshop at 200%, first inverted, and then desaturated.

Scanning cards is a bit tricky but i dont mess with any settings and do scan at 300dpi. Obviously the cards had something you could not see which in this case would be a wrinkle or a tiny spot of paper loss.
I just got an sgc 30 card that looks like a 50 but it has tiny spots of paper loss to the white boarder. I am not sure you would get this to show up without really messing with the image and am am certainly not unhappy with the card in any way and i expected sonething like that based on the grade.
I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect. If you are that worried about wrinkles ask before you buy.

James G

auction scans
 

Todd---From your 2 scans, I did see the minor crease on Probstein's scan--I couldnt see any creases on Goodwins's scan---too bad on your part in winning these cards where you thought there were no creases---I always though graded 4's were not supposed to have creases----and you are right where I feel the scans should not be enhanced---I also use the 300dpi when scanning for ebay.---Matter of fact, the cards I scan always look better in real life than the ebay scan. Don

I don't see any wrinkles, but I do see what appears to be a tiny speck of paper loss on the back of the Successful Farming Baker - bottom right corner, the "A" in IOWA. Then again, it could just be that filthy scanner bed. I've never seen that much dust. If it's paper loss, that submitter got a gift of a 4.

Edited to add two things:

1) Are the scans of the Successful Farming Baker from the same source? The front looks different than the back. The back scan has a lot fo dust, where the front scan doesn't. Also, the black SGC gasket is a much darker black compared to the front scan.

2) I agree with the poster above that said, "I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect."

I think a lot of people are under that impression, but it's just not true.

From PSA's website:
VG-EX 4: Very Good-Excellent
A PSA VG-EX 4 card's corners may be slightly rounded. Surface wear is noticeable but modest. The card may have light scuffing or light scratches. Some original gloss will be retained. Borders may be slightly off-white. A light crease may be visible. Centering must be 85/15 or better on the front and 90/10 or better on the back.

From SGC's website
VG/EX 4
85/15 or better centering, corners are slightly rounded with modest surface wear. Light hairline crease may show on one or both sides. A light tear or surface break may exist.

+1

I see the paper loss and maybe a wrinkle, but if I were looking at them as a buyer I would see two VG+ / VG-EX cards with good eye appeal.

Thanks for the responses guys. The scans you see came directly from the auction websites, and I do not believe they were re-sized much if at all coming through to net54. Here are the auction links:

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...entoryid=24412
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-4-...p2047675.l2557

Bill you raise an interesting point. Could you see what you perceive to be the wrinkle without taking the various photoshop steps you took? When buying higher dollar (or any)cards should one expect to subject the card to such types of scrutiny?

Do you others who see the wrinkle on the Altoona Tribune concur it is where Bill says, and if so, did you find it on your own or did you focus in on the spot Bill identified?

I agree wholeheartedly that if cards look nicer than you should expect for the grade, there is probably a slight defect. The Successful Farming card is so scarce that I really didn’t care too much, although I hoped they may have marked it down for the speck of paper loss on the “A” in “Iowa”, because I knew that is not paper loss at all but instead an inking problem–I will show other examples. I suppose I could have called Mr. Goodwin, but frankly I wanted to keep the Baker off his radar because his listing failed to mention that this was the ultra-scarce promo card and I didn’t know if he would modify the listing or pull the card (shameful of me).

I saw that the Altoona Tribune Baker has light damage along the right edge–many of them do, as if there was a dull blade or something that leads to slight chipping or bending in that area. Moreover, 90% of Altoona Tribune cards have faint pressure lines, sometimes extremely faint, which invariably knocks them down to vg or vg-ex status (only 2 in the entire set are graded higher than vg-ex). This is what I attributed to the card getting the grade it received. I just did not expect the wrinkle. BTW, I’m not sure whether Bill got it right because the actual wrinkle is IMO more aligned with Baker’s thigh, and he may have seen what is at most a light scratch below that point and closer to the knee area.

I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in.

"I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in."

That's two teasers now. The tension is unbearable. :D:D

It's just a glitch, Peter.;)

The first card has a crease in the right border area, roughly spanning the strike zone, about an inch to an inch and a half in length. The crease on the back of the second card is much tougher to see but I think it is near the top left corner.

Mike, the area you describe is the "bend" I was referring to earlier that is many times found in this issue, although I can see how you might call it a vertical wrinkle. It is a flaw no doubt, but one I noticed.

Here are the scans I took once the cards were in hand. Note the slight discoloration spot on the Altoona Tribune right border, across from the lower thigh area. The wrinkle extends somewhat straight in both directions from there (dips a little on the right), and is easily confirmed when the corresponding area on the card's reverse is seen. Note also the back wrinkle that runs from the left border through FA in FAVORITE and further through the B in TRIBUNE. These back “flaws” are certainly not visible in the scans used by the seller, and if you saw the front wrinkle based on seller’s scan only, I may ask for your help in future purchases. The Successful Farming back wrinkles run through the area that talks about obtaining 100 cards (the entire three lines)–thankfully, they do not break through to the front.

http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...ant/img558.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...iant/Baker.jpg

Believe me, the wrinkles would have been more readily seen had I used night-time ceiling lighting in my scans, and are easily seen in hand.

Wow, what a difference. Could someone post a side by side of the auction photos and Todd's?

I placed the Altoona Baker fronts together and there is a differece between Probstein's scan and Todd's scan. Todd said that he didn't adjust the settings and I have to assume that neither did Probstein, and look at the difference.

This is exaclty the point I was trying to make last night in the other thread. You can scan the same card with two different scanners using only the factory settings, and the images can appear different. Todd's scan is darker. Even the red on the flip is darker.

FWIW, I like Todd's scan better.

Thanks for noticing--it would be even more pronounced if you were to put the back scans side by side.

BTW, as mentioned, here are a couple of other Successful Farming cards with the inking void on "A" in IOWA.

http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh.../huge/ames.jpg
http://photos.imageevent.com/imoverh...5herzog_sf.jpg

Along those lines, I've owned a handful of Green-Joyce backs. Two of them had a very small area of missing ink on one of the letters (I don't remember which one, maybe the "J").

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

Very well said. Thank you!

See here’s the problem I have with your position Scott. I understand re-examining the issues whenever a new scanner is used or when different types of items are scanned, but what about when the same scanner is used for all flat items/cards and the scans are met with few or no complaints from buyers or bidders?

Here I do not believe that Goodwin or Probstein--intentionally or unintentionally-created extra bright or enhanced scans of these cards, yet clearly the actual card in hand does not look as good as the scan. The scans provided were large and clear, yet they failed to display the flaws. Should these sellers be in any way scorned?(you say be held accountable, but I’m confident they would have both honored returns-- is that sufficient accountability?). Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?

+1

I would like to add that most sellers who adjust their scanner settings (myself included) do not do so to be deceptive. I will slightly adjust my settings to properly advertise my card the way I believe it should be represented. We can all agree that a scan of a card is MILES different from viewing the card in person. Uping the dpi and making the scan marginally sharper will prevent the image from looking blurry. I have never had a complaint.

In the context of the PWCC thread, where by the naked eye you could tell that the scan was obviously enhanced (and the seller admitted to altering the settings), I disagreed with David and Scott. But in this instance, it is a different story, and I agree with them on at least one point - unless Todd reveals which scanner he was using, and we also learned the scanners used by Probstein and/or Goodwin, the comparison is somewhat useless.

I sent another poster some scans of a card he was interested in purchasing. I could see some wrinkles on the card and I couldn't get them to show up in the scan even though I was trying. I eventually used my camera to focus in on the creases and send him the scans and photo.

I would like to think that most people aren't deliberately trying to be deceptive with scans. Sometimes it's just difficult to get everything to show up.

I will say that if an auction house is selling a card and there are known/visible creases, then that information should be noted in the listing (especially if they don't show up on the scans).

The last thing I would ever do is take up for Probstein, but I think the answer to your first question is no, they don't have the obligation to carefully examine each card. There just simply isn't enough time for dealers to do that (especially large volume dealers). If the card is graded, you have to hope the TPG did their job. I think it all goes back to what James said in post #3. If you buy a card that is graded a 3, 4 or 5 and it looks more like a 5, 6 or 7, you have to assume it has some kind of flaw (that the scanner may or may not have picked up) and that is the reason for the low technical grade. That said, if they see a hidden flaw as they're scanning it, yes they should make mention of it, but I don't think they should have to scrutinize graded cards for hidden flaws as that's what the TPG is paid to do.

There are times when you just can't make a known wrinkle appear in a scan, no matter the scanner or who is scanning it...and sometimes can only see that wrinkle when you only hold it at a certain angle in the light. I just don't think dealers should have to do that with graded cards. What if they did scrutinize each card and still accidentally overlooked a wrinkle? Is it really their fault? In the cases with the Bakers, they are graded accurately (IMO).

I've sold cards (even here on the B/S/T) where the scanner did not pick up certain flaws (such as wrinkles). In such cases, I've tried adjusting the settings and re-scanning the cards (sometimes even multiple times) to make the flaws more visible, but sometimes it just can't be done with a scanner...and I'm certainly not going to waste 15 minutes or more to scan one card. In that case, I try to make mention of those flaws, but could I have missed a few at times? Certainly.

The answer to your second question is a “good representative scan” shows the card's true colors (whether you have to adjust the scanner settings to do this or not, but not enhanced to make it brighter or to mislead the buyer). If the two Bakers were scanned with no adjustments to the settings, then they provided good quality scans (IMO).

Are your scans better than their scans? Certainly. But you may have a better scan than they do. But just because you have better scans doesn't mean that it's anything they did wrong.

Aside from accurate images ( sellers know what their scans look like ), it would be nice to have any flaws posted in the item description and location of the flaw. I realize that I am asking way too much for that to ever happen. In most cases we can return ( less shipping fees ), however a lot of time and potential misunderstandings could be saved if sellers were forthcoming with buyers.

I'm not sure this matters, but I'm pretty sure Goodwin doesn't scan his cards, he uses a photographer.

Todd, to answer your first question, no I could not have.

When I first saw the scan you provided from Probstein's auction, what I thought was a wrinkle actually ended up being a flaw within the photo itself. I confirmed this when I compared it to the scan from Goodwin's auction. A different card, obviously, but the same "shadow" appeared. It is somewhat hard to see at first glance, but if you look at both scans, the arrow indicates a dark diagonal line extending from the middle of Baker's left leg, down and to the right, then straightening down vertically.

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/669/76xj.pnghttp://img826.imageshack.us/img826/5231/u2hv.png

Upon taking Probstein's scan into Photoshop, I caught what I thought could be the wrinkle you were describing when examining the area around that flaw. If you look at the beginning of that line down I described, from the same starting point, there is second faint line moving left to right, at least partially. Again, when comparing the Probstein scan and the Goodwin scan, it appears that both cards exhibit the same imperfection. However, above that line, the Probstein scan shows a slight darker line that the Goodwin scan does not. It appears as a shadow starting in the white border (about a third of the way up from the bottom), extends through the black outline, and into the picture. It's very subtle, and if I hadn't been looking at that area, I would have missed it. I then began playing with the picture, first inverting the image, and then messing with the hue. I thought that I might be seeing the wrinkle you alluded to, but wasn't sure.

Inverting a picture is often helpful in spotting surface flaws, as is adjusting the hue setting, even in a monochrome color card. I do this a lot when buying modern Bowman Chrome prospect auto cards because the production process involved creates metallic scan lines, and when present, they can lower the surface grade a half to a whole point at Beckett.

Example:

http://williamgregory.net/images/Probstein-inverted.png

When I saw your scan, it was remarkable how easy the crease was to see comparatively. I've created a gif animation overlaying your scan on top of the original Probstein scan. It's as if the crease in their scan, at least in the white border, disappears completely. This is a great example of how scanning settings can completely mask imperfections. I'd like to think that auction houses would disclose any wrinkles like this. I've received two catalogs from REA, and they are very good about describing any wrinkles or creases.

Here's the comparison:

http://williamgregory.net/images/Sca...mparison-I.gif

To answer your second question, I'd think any high dollar card purchase should be highly scrutinized, but unfortunately, not everybody has access to Photoshop. No matter how good a scan appears, and how carefully we look them over, it's very easy to overlook a wrinkle. This is where disclosure is so important. An auction house needs to thoroughly describe any imperfections or damage they see. Considering the buyer's commission on these auctions, I don't think that's asking too much.

Todd
 

Todd, when I compare Probsteins scan to your scans I would say I'm not looking at the same card. I'm wondering if Probstein is using some sort of hi speed scanner because of the high volume of cards they sell and it looks like the quality is much less than 300 dpi.

Rick

Bill, thanks for the time and work you put into your response.

Rick, I believe you are probably right, which is one question I was hoping would be discussed more. In the thread on PWCC, Brent is accused of using scans that "are too good to be true" representations of the card, whereas in my case, I would suggest that sellers use scans that "are not good enough to be true" representations of the card.

I'm techno challenged on the intricacies of scanners, so I may be talking out of my, er, hat, but it seems to me that 300 dpi scans would have revealed the flaws I have shown in my Baker cards. Yet I suspect many sellers set their scanners at 200 dpi if for no other reasons than to scan faster and have smaller file sizes. That seems to be acceptable practice from what I have gathered here, as I am basically told I should expect hidden defects in mid-grade cards and not much further comment on the problem is offered--which is fine.

But what if sellers know that 300 dpi scans are going to give a better depiction and more likely show flaws? Is it sufficient excuse to say they run so many auctions they shouldn't have to take the time to use better scans? Sure 400 dpi, 600 dpi etc would be even better and sellers may try and complain where does it end, but that's why I was asking for what should be an acceptable standard. I believe 300 dpi should be expected from any reputable seller.

BTW, I have been asked what type of scanner I use. It's an Epson V33/ V330, a few years old, and cost somewhere between $85-$135 (I don't remember exactly, but I have never paid $150 for a scanner). I use default settings except for the 300 dpi, and am given a choice of four "modes", whatever those are: home mode, auto mode, office mode and professional mode. I use office because it is a work scanner and figured that is what must be best for office work. So nuthin fancy here boys, yet my scans seem to give an accurate representation of the card.

I've sold nearly 10,000 items on eBay
 

The best sellers provide accurate pictures and descriptions which allows for maximum satisfaction for the buyer and maximum values for a moral and/or long term seller. In the early days I had to adjust hues and saturation as well as any number of things to insure that at least to me - with my monitor and with the card in hand - the card appeared on the net as it did to me in natural light. If I couldn't represent a fault - I took close-ups and made sure it was in my description. Working toward the goal of providing accurate pictures (and ease of use) - I went through quite a few scanners :-( The scanner I have been using of late is quite good (middle tier Cannon). Sometimes I adjust the DPI and I crop some pictures but that's it. I don't want my card to be seen by the buyer as better than my scans/description (yesh I left money on the table....) nor would I want to have the buyer getting a card that is below the quality represented by my pix and description. I want them to bid knowing exactly what they're getting - mirroring my own expectations when buying.
In the anonimity of cyberspace and more to the point eBay - the people who are looking to mis-represent - alter - and separate you from your money under false pretenses abound. If a seller intentionally juices their scans - I find it dishonest and I wouldn't trust giving them any business - as a scan is part of the description.
There are also honest and well meaning people who do a bad job at any of the requisite tasks involved in selling an item. I don't think auction houses are exempt from this. Some do a better job than others - I believe at least in the long run that will be reflected in their success and longevity (er um ah forget about CC for a second!). It's an imperfect world. Don't give your business to those people.................

1880, it's interesting you would adjust the hues and saturation, because that's what I've been doing in scanning my pre-war cards. I have a Canoscan 8400F, and I've been using the included software, then slightly tweaking the card in Photoshop. I'd completely forgotten that you could use Photoshop to scan without any second software, so I did some scans using the Photoshop input option. It loads the twain software, does its thing, and I've found the cards actually look better. So, that raises another question for me in regard to the auction houses. Are they using the software included with their scanners, or a professional photo-editing software to do them. They're (hopefully) going to have top of the line scanners as the pictures of the items they are consigning directly impact their sales, and bottom line. I'd be very interested to see a list of the major houses, and what scanner/software combinations they use.

Wouldn't it be nice if REA, Herritage and the other major houses could get together, and decide on some sort of standard?

Smudge
 

Scott, what do you find is the best way to get fingerprints/smudges off the slabs? I am having a tough time getting some cleaned. Thanks.

Isaac, I've found that a lens cleaning cloth works wonders. They're non-abrasive, and there's no chemicals to cloud the plastic. For really stubborn prints, just a dampen the cloth. I use them, too, to wipe fingerprints on my scanner surface.

I'm intrigued by the 3M Lens Cleaning Cloth, and am going to order some.

http://www.amazon.com/3M-9021-Lens-C.../dp/B00009PSZ2

I'll let you all know what I think. These + the Novus 2 Fine Scratch Remover solution I have should make the slabs look about as clean as possible (and the next best thing to paying for reslabbing).

Tip of hat
 

Bill, thanks man for the tips.
:cool:

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Most of what has been said it true if it's 10 different scanners the card may present 10 different ways so as long as someone isn't intentionally altering the scan to hide defects I don't see a problem. If there is a certain defect you don't like then ask the seller a detailed question and any good seller or auction house will review a card and give more details when asked. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to grade every graded card.

James G

Sorry I missed this post. All I do is breathe on them to get some condensation, then I quickly wipe with a cloth that was intended to clean my glasses. It works great unless the plastic is scratched.

On another note, noticing that one of the PSA card scans had a darker background - this does not necessarily mean that contrast was tweaked. I always scan slabbed cards with a dark black cloth placed over the back of the card - to me this is imperative when scanning PSA cards, not so much with SGC. Cloth works better than black paper.

Good point, James. A VG-EX card is allowed to have creases. An EX card is not. Any time I bid on a seemingly EX or better card that does not appear to have creases, but it's in a VG-EX or lower holder, I assume it has very tiny creases somewhere on the card.

On the other hand, if I think I might see a very tiny crease on an EX card, but I'm unsure, I will assume it's my imagination, or I will contact the seller before bidding, since it should not have any creases. I have won a few cards that were graded EX and had creases that didn't show - I sent them back and got a prompt refund.

I agree. They look like a couple of nice 4s to me.

Thanks for the responses. Let me clarify and summarize my position.

1. I am keeping both cards.
2. I believe all wrinkles or creases should be disclosed in auction listings, unless they are very obvious. David Bryan (davidbvintage) has always been great about this, and I'm sure there are others.
3. I get it that a a card graded 4/50 can have slight wrinkles/creases, but see #2 above.
4. I wonder if sellers/auctioneers "underscan" their cards to hide flaws.
5. I wonder (now) if software makes it fairly easy for sellers to disguise wrinkles/creases.
6. I would much rather have a seller who deliberately enhances his scans to "puff" his sale, assuming no defects are obscured, then one who knows (or should if he bothered to look) that there are defects but provides a scan that doesn't show them. F@%*k caveat emptor or "you should have asked" defenses when seller is lazy or worse.
6. I believe it a good idea to have a standard for scan settings, and/or that sellers place in their auction rules/faq's etc. the scanner and scan settings they use, with a disclaimer if they choose. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

A few random points:

Those Baker cards are beautiful for the grades.

Don't forget monitor differences. The settings a seller uses on his monitor can affect how the image looks to him and he might correct a color or contrast level as a result not to cheat but to make the item look more true to life as his monitor shows it.

When a card is scanned in a slab there is going to be some distortion. A CIS scanner [which most all-in-one machines have] doesn't have the depth perception that a CCD scanner does and it won't even scan a slabbed card accurately. I had to keep the old HP scanner I had even though my new Canon printer has a scanner because it cannot scan a slabbed card in focus. Even with a CCD scanner, you are still shooting through a layer of plastic that may or may not be crystal clear.

I find the best test of image accuracy on an auction listing is the color on the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip should look like; if that is too bright, the wrong color, or otherwise distorted, I assume the rest of the image is distorted too.

I don't think an auctioneer who offers a series of large scans, front and back, must offer a description of every card flaw as well, especially if I am buying a midgrade or lower cards. I appreciate it when the AH does so.

Good point - easy enough to compare a real flip you are holding in your hand, to an online scan.

right
 

I agree and don't mean to sound flippant, but I always thought that was obvious. That's why I couldn't get into the other thread so much--seems to me that if PWCC enhances all of its scans it's a form of puffing that's readily observed, IMO, by looking at the flips and slabs, which opponents claim are damn near glowing. I can get through that with little heartburn, unless the scans are enhanced to hide defects.

Yep. The scanner law anality of that thread was mind-boggling.

I received a 5-card T205 lot in May, from a major auction house, that had the glowing scans you describe. It was obvious that they had been altered drastically, but I could tell enough from the grade, registration, color of the flip, etc., to have a pretty good idea of what they looked like - anyway, good enough to bid confidently. I altered THEIR scans to make the flip look correct, and sent those scans to a friend who was interested in one of the cards. When he saw the actual card at the National, he said that it looked better than the scans. True story - ask the boss.