pwcc (part two)
2 Attachment(s)
Last night I had someone contact me with some information about PWCC doctoring their auction scans. He said that he would provide me proof, but also asked for anonymity. I promised him such.
Take a look at the 1951 Parkhurst Hockey Milt Schmidt cards below. They are the same card, same serial number. Notice how the red print dot (to the right of his head) is missing from the first scan, but is visible in the second scan. Here’s is the card history: PWCC first sold this card in August 2012 for $653. Here is a link: http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=249611 In this auction, the red print dot is missing. The scan has been touched up to remove it. ************************************************** PWCC sold the same card once again just recently, this time selling for $542.73. Here is the link: http://www.pwccauctions.com/item.php?item_no=496377 Perhaps the first buyer received the card and didn’t like it feeling it was misrepresented and returned it for a refund (I can only speculate), but for whatever reason PWCC ended up with the card once again. The second buyer now has it listed in his eBay store and the red dot is clearly visible... http://www.ebay.com/itm/1951-PARKHUR...#ht_111wt_1121 There is, to me at least, a difference in tweaking a scan so that it is a closer representation of the actual card versus editing a scan to cover up a known defect. Thoughts anyone? |
Are we actually still debating whether PWCC doctors its scans? Unless you're a consignor of PWCC or named Brent does anyone else honestly think they don't?
|
Quote:
|
Agree completely on removing a print dot. Contrast/Hue/etc is one thing and might be explained away in a few circumstances. If the above is true, very indicting...........
|
Again, I'm a known consignor to PWCC, so it is what it is. However, in the above scan, could it possibly be due to the dust removal option in the scanner? I've seen examples where the dot was removed from the half letter grades in PSA flips in scans. (e.g., "7.5" would appear as "7 5").
|
Quote:
|
As members of this board, we have two options. We can absolve auction houses of all responsibility for their scans by saying that any disappeared blemish is a result of the dust removal option, and passing off any changes in the hue/contrast, etc. as simply an attempt by the auction house to make the scan appear more realistic.
Or, we can demand accountability and ensure that the settings aren't changed, dust removal options aren't being used, and that we are receiving true scans from modern scanners which, these days, possess the ability to give an accurate scan at their default settings. The choice is yours, folks. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
How do you remove the dot and get the same purple background as the rest of the card?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Insisting that a seller use a "modern scanner" and "default settings" does not ensure an accurate scan. Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it. |
Quote:
Yes, ultimately, what matters is that we receive an accurate scan. But my concern is that what can be deemed "accurate" is so subjective, that it allows auction houses to use attempts at "accuracy" as an excuse for adjusting their scans in fraudulent ways that are wholly inaccurate and enhance the image of the card. Maybe some can argue that even the newest CCD scanners are not 100% accurate. But I would rather live in a world where all the auction houses are posting CCD scans on default setting than a world where all the auction houses are adjusting their scans for the sake of "accuracy", because I suspise that their idea of "accuracy" basically means brightening the hues and strengthening the contrast in order to enhance the card's image for prospective bidders (juicing the scan) instead of a genuine attempt at accuracy. |
Well-said, Lance.
We could also have scanner police who install 'settings locks' on all scanners, and who can conduct unannounced visits to check for compliance;however, if someone is a cheat, there are other ways to do so besides scans. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But I think you should have more confidence in your own ability to state your point clearly. I personally think you did a wonderful job of explaining your thoughts. It allowed me to very easily decide that I disagree with you. It doesn't mean that either one of us is right, only that we disagree. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am not a mind-reader. I have no idea what you know or don't know. If you write something sarcastic instead of constructively stating your opinion, I may not know whether you've read my initial statement about it or not. And by the way, if you don't like my ideas about how to hold the auction houses accountable, then fine. But what exactly do you plan to do about it? I haven't heard any of your ideas, just sarcastic remarks and statements that I am wrong and that you disagree. You have said yourself that there is fraud - demanding greater disclosure is often how people deal with fraud from any company, not just auction houses. If you don't like that idea, then what exactly is your solution? |
The best way to hold them accountable if you believe there are issues is to not do business with them. Short of that we can continue to thrash about on a message board.
|
Quote:
|
Nate's got it right, it might even be easier.
Those two scans aren't looking good. But before we get out the pitchforks I'd like to be certain of one thing. That the dot is actually on the card, and not "stuff" on the scanner glass or slab. I regularly have to clean my scanner. I usually find "stuff" on there after I do a scan and see something I didn't think was on the card. I have a 3 year old, one card developed a nice yellow smiley face - Fortunately it was only drawn on the scanner glass. The gooey cheerio on the other hand became a feature of a cheap 80's common, which was added to the scanner by her. At least she's showing some interest. :) So it's not impossible for stuff to get on the scanner. (I'm seeing the red dot as a result of scanning during lunch, perhaps a hot dog with ketchup?) Or the scan has been played with. Removing something like that is beyond what I'd consider ok. Any chance the person with the info was the first buyer? That would clear it right up. Or if someone knows the current owner or consigner. |
Quote:
|
Scott is the master of sarcasm, wielding what is usually the sledgehammer of comedic approaches like a fine razor so that the victim doesn't even realize he's cut. Love it :D
|
Quote:
And I also noticed you evaded my question on how to find a solution to the fraud. To just say "you are wrong" and write sarcastic remarks without providing constructive criticism and constructive solutions is cowardly behavior. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Nobody is forcing anyone to bid anywhere. If you think there is something amiss and you continue to bid then I am not sure what you ever expect to change. I guess some folks "need" cards worse than others and we all have different levels of tolerance.
|
Quote:
|
Guys, we all agree that there is a problem, but holy crap! This is overkill, what in the hell constructive is going to come of this? You can bet your ass Ebay is not going to do a damn thing....
|
Quote:
I hope your Plan B works out. |
Quote:
|
Jamie, what you fail to grasp is that forcing all sellers to use a specific device with specific settings to capture a card image does nothing to address the real problem: Crooks Will Be Crooks.
Even if you could somehow implement the requirement you've repeated over and over, what's to stop them from altering the image after the scan? Or from stating certain scanning parameters but not actually following them? You're imagining the scanner and its settings as the only means a dishonest seller has to alter their card images, and assuming that if you can control that one aspect, you can bring them back in line, when the reality is that manipulating the scan settings is about the least subtle way one could alter card images. You can make all the rules you want, but if a seller has determined that deception is an acceptable selling tool, mandating scanners/scan settings won't rectify that. |
Quote:
It's on the card. Here is where it sold in 2011. http://sports.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleN...lotIdNo=240002 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Has anyone even contacted Ebay about these accusations?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oy, vey. Gentlemen, part one was painful enough to read.
Should the focus be whether or not default scanner settings are the way to go - or - whether or not an accurate scan is appropriate? As it pertains to the OP (in this thread) questioning a disappearing dot on the Mint 9 hockey card, I strongly feel as though some sort of shenanigans were in order there. It seems to be clear fraud to me. I may be mistaken. Best Regards, Eric |
Quote:
Frankly, I would bet that almost all auction houses already do use it at this point. |
Quote:
Seriously, how many different scanners have you used? |
Quote:
Basically, it is just a bunch of people arguing about nothing. Or just writing snarky comments. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Steve B |
Quote:
...and on two concurrent threads no less. |
It's not that they're arguing about nothing, it's that nothing will come from it.
|
Mandating new auction-wide scanner rules is laughable. As is special, scary stationary for hobby watchdog groups run by the fraudsters themselves.
Lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments are the only things which will stop the fraud -- or at least slow it down. |
Quote:
Pressuring companies to disclose policies is not a new tactic. Companies are often pressured to disclose labor practices, political donations, carbon-footprint information, among other things. Will increased disclosure stop fraud? No, but it could slow it down - just like lawsuits, grand jury subpoenas and indictments. And pressuring for disclosure and prosecution don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be done in conjunction. Just remember: you can prosecute - and lose. It is no slam dunk, either. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thousands of examples of ebay fraud have been posted on this message board, and how many of them have been prosecuted by the feds? Very few, if any. Can't see how PWCC would be any different. My guess is that if the feds were going to prosecute anyone about scan enhancing, it would be one of the larger auction houses selling big-ticket items, not a small-time ebay outfit. |
I would say that your knowledge of what went into the determination to indict Mastro -- which is what you're referring to -- is wrong. I would also say that the idea that the Feds are the only prosecutorial body available to handle fraud such as we've seen here is also incorrect.
|
Quote:
I don’t care if they have their 3 year old color me a picture of the card with Crayons, as long it is a close representation of the card. Lance said it best earlier in this thread, “Hold the seller accountable for the accuracy of the image posted, not the means they employed to produce it." |
Quote:
|
I ask again, has anyone notified Ebay? If so, what is there stance? As I said before, probably a complete waste of time....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
And if you find fraud, spread wide enough, then some of these agencies would be interested. They won't be as interested in a particular event unless it's a big one. And as taxpayers we wouldn't want them investigating every $100 fraud. I do agree ebay does very little, from what I have seen, to prevent fraud on their site. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I've been told by the FBI that they won't bother with anything under 20k worth of fraud, so we have a long way to go there. As for postal inspectors, I doubt they are interested in ebay scans. We can cross that off the list. The Dept of Homeland Security just deals with things coming into the country, so that's a no. So does that only leaves PWCC's local police department as our only option? I agree with Leon, it's hard to imagine bothering anyone over $110.27 worth of fraud. |
Unless I missed it, nobody mentioned anything about monitors. I use a Samsung 26" HD monitor with my PC. I also have a notebook, tablet and smartphone and I am sure the same scan will look different on each one. While I agree the scan should accurately represent the card that doesn't mean the person with a crappy monitor will view it as such.
|
Quote:
http://www.knysnawebsitedesign.co.za...onitor-Old.jpg |
It is hard to compete with a Franklin monitor. :D
|
Quote:
I do have a new suggestion though that I believe could greatly improve the relationship between the scans posted and the actual condition of the cards themselves in regards to scanner settings. If every scan would simply include a "proof color strip" that shows the basic RGB colors (red, green, blue, white and black) on a strip of paper next to the card itself on the scanner bed. A quick glance at the proof strip would allow the viewer to quickly determine if the scanner settings have been modified, if black or any other colors look washed out on the proof strip, the viewer knows the scan is washed out or some other settings have been modified to try to improve the scans appearance. Now granted this does not eliminate flat deception from Photoshop editing, but I think it would go a long way in improving most scans where scanner settings are involved. |
Yes, the 'ol we're too big/busy to do things right excuse.
|
Quote:
|
Mark, Jeff, I don't know what lines of business you guys are in, but people are human and make mistakes. This is true in any occupation. The question is whether this is outright fraud, negligence or just a human mistake. For example, I sell cards on ebay on the side. I scan the front and back of each card using my CanoScan 8600F at 300 dpi, with default settings. Then I create the ebay listings using Turbolister. When I create the listings, I look at the card, and note in the ebay description any imperfections in the card that need to be pointed out, like creases, wrinkles, marks, etc. Then I move on to the next listing. I don't check to make sure every imperfection that I saw in the card was caught in the scan. I have three kids and a real job. I don't have time for this. There was one time when shipping a sold card, where I noticed that there was a crease in the card that could only be seen at an angle. I think it was a PSA 3, so by chance I thought, wow, was this card overgraded, and I checked the scan in the ebay listing, and noticed that this crease did not show up in the scan. I took a photo of the card at that angle where the crease could be seen, and then I mailed the buyer this photo, and told him about the situation, and that I would completely understand if he wanted to cancel the transaction. If he still wanted to keep the card, I would take 40% off the sold price. He decided to keep the card and take the discount. However, it was purely by chance that I caught this. A bunch of other cards could have been shipped by me that had the same problem, but were not caught. On the flip side, there was one time that I purchased a card from Howard (buythatcard). There was a mark in the card that was clearly in the scan, but not in the description. When I saw the mark, I couldn't believe that I missed it, so I messaged Howard, and he allowed the full return no questions asked. That's the point with ebay, however much we dislike it. Ebay through the Top Rated Seller rules, tries to push for allowing 14 day returns on all items. So if you get the item and don't like it, just return it. If you don't think that what you received didn't match the seller's description or scan, ding his DSR's (Detailed Seller Ratings). You can say well, if I ding this guy, it won't make a difference, but for me as a seller, I can only receive 2 ratings of 1-2 in a DSR category per YEAR, or I will lose my Top Rated Seller rating. So if three buyers say that my scan or description did not match what they received, then I lose my rating that 20% fee discount that goes with it. And obviously, the last part of this is that if the ebay seller refuses the return, you can log a SNAD case with them for ebay to decide. In the case of the missing print dot, I'm pretty sure ebay would rule in the buyer's favor. Again, if PWCC is doing mass alterations of their scans, that's completely wrong. In no way am I advocating that. Nor am I saying it's okay to make their scans look brighter or wipe away flaws. If they are doing that deliberately, it's obviously wrong. However, I don't think people can expect perfection here.
|
Gary,
I make plenty of mistakes and so do the people I work for and the people who work for me. However there is a difference between an error of omission/mistake and saying that the enterprise is so large that the proper degree of oversight is unmanageable IMO. |
It may also be worth noting that far more often than not, in order to get good visual fidelity, you need to adjust the settings on electronic components from their default states. This goes for TVs, computer monitors, cameras, scanners, etc.
People that use those items for their business or for a serious hobby almost never leave their devices in their default states. So PWCC saying that they do change their settings doesnt indicate that they are adjusting the image to make it look better than what it looks like in reality. |
Quote:
Precisely!! |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:15 PM. |