He meant, "I don't want to get in trouble for this."

Ahhh, thanks for the clarification.

So, that makes him a liar too, right? Because first, according to your interpretation, he said that he did adjust the settings, but then he contradicted himself and said that he didn't adjust the settings.

This Brent guy sounds like a bad dude. I'll steer clear. Thanks for the warning.

Not sure I follow this exchange, but he certainly lied about never having heard of any issues with his scans prior to this thread.

Peter, he may have. I don't know. Just glancing through the thread (again, I'm late to the party - didn't read it all), there also seems to be some accusations of allowing shill bidding too.

Right or wrong though, you do have to give him some credit. At least he came on here to address the accusations. That's a lot more than we can say about Tricky Ricky Probstein.

Take care!

Can someone PLEASE show me an example of an unrealistic scan from the most recent auction. Peter posted an old scan, I would like to see a recent one. From what I have noticed (and from Brent has said) the issue you has been fixed.

76, then 78. And I give no credit for coming on and lying, no. And at one point Rick came on too, if memory serves.

Oh! :(

It helps if you read the thread first before starting your arguments.

Brent came onto the thread, lied, and left.

You are wrong.

Veni, mentiri, abdici, or something like that.

You are from outer space. Just ask the Saco River guy.

You're right, I didn't read the entire thread. I picked up from post 142 where you inferred that a scan should never be adjusted. You're were wrong and two other people have also since told you that you are wrong. There are sometimes when scans should be adjusted to represent the actual card. My point was, and I'll repeat it again because you obviously keep missing it, is that you can take the same card, scan it with two different scanners using the factory settings, and they'll still appear differently. I have forgotten more about scanners than you'll ever know.

lololololol

Abusus non tollit usum. :D:D:D

Yes Jeff, he is an idiot!

Dan Mckee

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.

eat a di** dan.

Edit***
Actually eat a couple of them. Your overweight so I know your hungry all of time.
kevin quinn

Hey Dave- Glad you mentioned scanners...What is the best on the market price wise? It's all I can do to screw in a light bulb......

i did not have time to properly respond to you this morning. dan's response was much easier at 5 am.

this is simply a response. it is not really meant for argument, and i probably will not even read it to be honest with you, if one does come.

1)
do you really think that i don't know that people on here like to prosecute people for their wrong doings? half of the conversations are about slander, lawsuits, the fbi or what have you? almost makes you wonder if you could find yourself at the wrong end of something just for talking on here but that is a whole nother discussion. isn't cyber bullying against the law now?

2)
nice. break it down to name calling like an adult would. that is how things remain civil and friendly.

3)
there are 4 types of board members here.

1. the 1st one talks about the problems in this thread somethings when they have something to say.
2. the 2nd type talks about it ALL OF THE TIME and they are on EVERY SINGLE THREAD.
3. the 3rd kind could care less or refuses to participate in the timeless rehash under a different guise.

now any one of the first 3 types could also be someone of type 4 which is something who does something about the problem. you collectively lump the type 2 people into a classification of people that do something about it as they are "part of the board" by claiming the board has done this and the board has done that.

talking about something until you are blue in the face is not doing something.

you have also almost clumped yourself into that group as someone who DOES do something about it by saying "the board". have you in fact done something about it? if so, then my comments were not to you. were they? they were to all of the type 2ers out there that pound these threads every 30 minutes.

you may have. great. what that was i don't really care, but feel free to share it with everyone. they may be interested in it. we need more people like you then. that was my entire point. the type 2ers that are so convicted that is all they want to talk about should also be the people that get actively involved instead of JUST talking about it. no one wants to hear people say what they should be doing about something from someone that doesn't want to get involved.

if you have not, then do not clump yourself into the group of people who do by saying you are talking about the problem so you are helping. see previous post about doing something about it, as it now does apply to you.

kevin quinn

And in your next post you are faulting Lichtman for name calling? :confused::confused:

Be very careful on name calling with Jeff....;)

quite honestly im tired of his shit. he is a f**king a**hole. im sorry if some of you guys like him but im not going to pretend to.

when unprovoked im a nice guy. but im not going to let him piss in my cerial like the di**head he is.

do you really expect me to just sit here and take that? its not the first time.

sorry. im not going to do it.

kevin quinn

Who is the a-hole? The one asking you if you're an idiot for asking a borderline idiotic question, or the one going off the rails calling the other a blanking this, and blanking that in some internet rant?

I also think you may need to reassess your definition of "doing something". Most would constitute a thread, or multiple threads as you point out, on the most popular "blog" in the hobby a pretty big step in "doing something" to better the hobby, and the core of what is being discussed in the first place.

From what I understand, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have used Net54 as a place to gather information and a sequencing of events when in the process of prosecuting or investigating a matter --- typically one of fraud. I can remember a few occasions, and I am sure other members can substantiate those examples, as well as offer some more from years past, when Leon has mentioned that an FBI agent contacted him over matters that were discussed on the board, because it was where they were first brought to light.

Surely if every thread was sunshine and rainbows, it is palpable that nothing would be """"done"""". If we all attended the same stupid country club that kicked someone out of their schnazzy restaurant for wearing jeans, then maybe we could more easily collaborate in a more "tangible" way, but, until that happens, the internet is a decent means of communication.

Post 180....
 

.....reminds me of some Jack Handey Deep Thought

there is history which im not going to rehash.

i have bit my tounge long enough. my train station runs a tight schedule.

this derailment was warrented.

kevin quinn

Uh...barry?

Yes indeed. Barry! (It must feel nice to be needed.).:D

...

and this one....

The preceding three posts are absolutely classic...

I laughed hysterically, except for the Rocky clip --- I wanted to laugh, but it was one of the few occasions where Stallone was in one of his half-decent acting modes.

True story: I once walked into a country club restaurant where they didn't allow jeans, but did allow shorts of any color, so - I asked them, theoretically, if I were to walk in wearing boxers that looked like shorts - if that would be ok. They agreed. So, I took my belt off and literally began to pull my pants down before, ahem, my grandma told me not to - saying we'd go somewhere else.

Best part? There were only 2 other patrons in the restaurant at the time.

I'm staying out of this. I'll sit quietly and read.:)

You have repeated your scan thoughts probably 6-7 times in this thread. You are still wrong. If taking your argument outside of the earth's gravity clears your head a little, then go for it.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Finally, you admit it!

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.

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.


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?

http://kbsrush.files.wordpress.com/2...brick-wall.jpg

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.

Im having jon lovitz flashbacks...jack!!

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!

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...



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.


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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Just don't start twerking your scans.

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.

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.

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.

Tired of reading this!
 

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

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. :eek:

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.

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

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

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

Another one at random. October 10.

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.

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.