pwcc

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

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

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

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1959-Topps-B...ht_3407wt_1121

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

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

[Leon]

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

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

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

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

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

[jtschantz]

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

[dstudeba]

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

[cyseymour]

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

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

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

Later!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

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

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

Finally, you admit it!

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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

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

You are an idiot, man.

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

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Finally, you admit it!

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

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

[cyseymour]

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

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

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

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

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

[ullmandds]

Im having jon lovitz flashbacks...jack!!

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

How hard are these comments to understand...

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

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

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

I don't mean to speak for Peter, but I belive he's agreeing that it's sometimes necessary to adjust the settings to get an accurate representation of a card.

Originally Posted by Leon

I will add my half cent to the scanner setting debate. I have probably done 2000 scans in the last 3-4 yrs. On about 2-3 cards I HAD to adjust settings so the card would look correct in hand, as seen from the scan.

I think Leon is saying the same thing as well (but I don't mean to speak for him either).

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[cyseymour]

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Leon]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

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

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

[drcy]

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

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

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

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

[Cardboard Junkie]

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

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

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

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

[Runscott]

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

[HRBAKER]

Just don't start twerking your scans.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by jtschantz

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[sam majors]

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

[dstudeba]

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

Hi Val.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

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

Hi Val.

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

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

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

[Eric72]

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

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

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

Best Regards,

Eric

[npa589]

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...sSr3z5nVk#t=38

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

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

Another one at random. October 10.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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

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

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

[nolemmings]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[nolemmings]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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

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

At least he is showing initiative.

[slipk1068]

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

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

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

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[slipk1068]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Does this one qualify??



http://tinyurl.com/k3d63f8

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

http://tinyurl.com/lkvfruk

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

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Just don't start twerking your scans.

lmao

[slipk1068]

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=350846238664


Does anyone believe this bid history looks legit?