pwcc

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I know that scans can look different from different scanners, but that is not the issue here. And I still don't think that scans ought to be adjusted, especially with the new scanners like the Canonscan 9000 there is absolutely no reason to adjust. It is not that hard for an auction house to post an accurate scan - Sterling, Mile High, B&L, Just Collect among others do just that. It is really very simple. A nice scanner costs under $200 these days and there is no excuse. Brent H himself said that he had been changing the settings, so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense.

If an auction house created an accurate scan, and it had been adjusted to make it so, you would have no idea. And you have no reason to care other than you seem to like being a pain in the butt, "so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense."

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

If an auction house created an accurate scan, and it had been adjusted to make it so, you would have no idea. And you have no reason to care other than you seem to like being a pain in the butt, "so please stop already. Because you aren't making any sense."

It's easy to say, man, and it obviously took you this long to figure out a response. Just go back to post #159 and tell me straight that you don't think the scanner settings have been adjusted on that PWCC card. I don't think you can.

[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?

Anyways, I am done responding to this Runscott character for the time being. Scott, I've met you in real life, and you are a nice guy. But your posts don't resemble much the person who you are in real life. And that's all I've got to say to you at this point. You may have whatever opinion, and all I've got to say is, good luck to you. Peace. -J

[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?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

It's easy to say, man, and it obviously took you this long to figure out a response. Just go back to post #159 and tell me straight that you don't think the scanner settings have been adjusted on that PWCC card. I don't think you can.

No, it took me about 5 seconds. I just haven't been spending every waking moment of my day reading your posts. This one will take me a bit longer.

Your comment above, regarding the PWCC card is completely irrelevant, as I am in complete agreement with you that some sellers modify scans to enhance cards and hide defects. That is fraudulent.

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

Also, I realize that the thrust of this thread is to discredit PWCC, and I took it off topic by arguing with you about whether or not it's okay to change scanner settings. I've said all I have to say about the subject, and I respect your right to disagree with me.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Your comment above, regarding the PWCC card is completely irrelevant, as I am in complete agreement with you that some sellers modify scans to enhance cards and hide defects. That is fraudulent.

I agree with everything you wrote except that the PWCC card is completely irrelevant. Go look at the title of the thread and the original post. In fact, your arguments are irrelevant to this thread. You wrote yourself that you took it off topic. It appears that other than what is or isn't relevant, we don't really disagree on anything at all. Which is actually kind of a relief. Good luck, Scott.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.