pwcc

[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

[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

[calvindog]

Pesky paper trail!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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

Those inconvenient paper trails.....

[ScottFandango]

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

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by ScottFandango

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

+1

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

[thehoodedcoder]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

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.

[CobbvLajoie1910]

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Brent Huigens

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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."

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[nrm1977]

Originally Posted by 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

Interesting....I swear I saw this exact same statement in the past year! Too funny...

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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]

Originally Posted by the-illini

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by the-illini

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]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.