Okay, David, please read Brent's post. Brent himself said that he was adjusting the settings.

He did say that and in any event it's beside the point. When you need goggles to protect your eyes from scans, there is a problem even if that is what the factory settings do.

As I said earlier, I haven't read the thread, but I did go back and look for Brent's post. Here's what I saw (copied and pasted directly from his statement).

Just to confirm, our scans are never enhanced artificially.

Where do you read that he said that he was adjusting the settings?

And just to clarify, adjusting the scanner settings doesn't necessarily mean adjusting the color. It can also mean adjusting the size, the output format (PDF, JPEG), etc.

Here it is... it is located in the paragraph above what you quoted.

That wouldn't make any sense within the context of what is being discussed. Come on, Dave. You are better than that.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.