1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary

[calvindog]

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=24903

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...---SGC-40-VG-3

Or just a scan which completely misrepresents what the card actually looks like.

[sago]

Old dog, same tricks?

[conor912]

Shocking!!! I can't believe someone would....oh, wait...yes I can.

[tiger8mush]

strange cuz the holder ID # is the same. Was the card removed from the holder? Or scanned differently?

[KCRfan1]

I thought the 1914 CJ fell apart if soaked, due to the thin card stock. Does anyone here have some insight about this?

[g_vezina_c55]

The card is in the same holder. Probably only the scan difference.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

I thought the 1914 CJ fell apart if soaked, due to the thin card stock. Does anyone here have some insight about this?

He means a virtual bath via photoshop. You can make anything look brighter and cleaner with the touch of a button.

[iggyman]

Nice try Jeff, but real magicians never reveal their secrets unless subpoenaed.

Lovely Day...

[calvindog]

Doug -- I'm sending this to your sentencing judge to show him that you're still defrauding people, even while facing federal fraud charges.

[honus94566]

Yeah, you can tell it's the same card and it's in the same holder, so it hasn't been soaked or anything. You can tell from the unnaturally vivid color on the legendary scan that the scanned image has been brightened and/or increased in contrast, which takes about 2 seconds using even the most basic of photo editing software. Or, the settings of the scanner could be adjusted to capture images that way. Just look at the color of the green SGC label on the legendary image, that's what tells you something's funky.

[bobfreedman]

Jeff, I do not believe that there is anything deceitful going on here, the scanning process and software can cause this problem and we have seen this before. REA may taken there image with a camera and LA may have scanned their image with a scanner. Also, if one uses different settings (DPI, resolution etc...) that can cause the differences as well. I know you will believe what you want to but this does happen on occasion.

Bob Freedman
CEO, SimpleAuctionSite.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Just look at the color of the green SGC label on the legendary image, that's what tells you something's funky.

Good call. The card images aside, the green on the flips is a dead giveaway. They turned the contrast up to 11 on this one, for sure. It's stuff like this that makes me appreciate REA all-the-more.

[dallen]

I will review the actual card tomorrow and if in fact our scan is inaccurate we will correct it. Additionally if we do make a mistake and a scan depicts a card materially different than it actually appears we will take the card back and provide a full refund. I don't believe we have had a single complaint like this in the 5 years Legendary has been in business. As always if anyone sees an issue in our catalog we appreciate your pointing it out so we can make the necessary corrections. Since I don't frequent this site emails to dallen@legendaryauctions.com are appreciated.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do not believe that there is anything deceitful going on here, the scanning process and software can cause this problem and we have seen this before. REA may taken there image with a camera and LA may have scanned their image with a scanner. Also, if one uses different settings (DPI, resolution etc...) that can cause the differences as well. I know you will believe what you want to but this does happen on occasion.

Bob Freedman
CEO, SimpleAuctionSite.

Well, since I'm pretty sure REA didn't make their photo of the card look dirtier than it actually is, I guess it all comes down to "is the photo an accurate representation of what then card looks like in hand?"

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

[bobfreedman]

Conor, I don't believe I said that anyone made their image "dirtier", my point is that you take an image on two different types of equipment with different settings, you will get different results.

Originally Posted by conor912

Well, since I'm pretty sure REA didn't make their photo of the card look dirtier than it actually is, I guess it all comes down to "is the photo an accurate representation of what then card looks like in hand?"

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Conor, I don't believe I said that anyone made their image "dirtier", my point is that you take an image on two different types of equipment with different settings, you will get different results.

Then Legendary needs to get new equipment, or give scanning lessons to his employees. I'm sure Doug will take care of it.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do not believe that there is anything deceitful going on here, the scanning process and software can cause this problem and we have seen this before. REA may taken there image with a camera and LA may have scanned their image with a scanner. Also, if one uses different settings (DPI, resolution etc...) that can cause the differences as well. I know you will believe what you want to but this does happen on occasion.

Bob Freedman
CEO, SimpleAuctionSite.

I will have to disagree, Bob.

Lined up next to each other, it appears that one of these pictures has been Photoshopped. If two cards have the same technical grades, the one with greater eye appeal will sell for more. Well, there is clearly a difference in eye appeal here.



The difference between these two cards does not come simply from adjusting things like levels, color saturation, etc. Nor would the source of the picture, camera or scanner, account for the discrepancy.

Look in the red area above Matty's glove. Dirt that is clearly visible on one card is simply not present in the other. In one copy, the red background shows a lot of soiling from being handled over the last century. The second, the red background is remarkably clean. Compare the borders of the two photos, as well. I have a scanner and a digital camera. I can take a picture of the card with both, and dirt would not just disappear altogether. If I were a buyer of this card, expecting a certain level of eye appeal, and got the other card, I'd be pretty upset.

[honus94566]

Here is a card I bought from Legendary a few years back.

Scan from the auction:
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=113654



Here is my own scan (after having it swapped from PSA to SGC). Scanned with my Canon Nanoscan 9000F. Completely stock settings.



Clearly, the Legendary scan is quite a bit brighter / more contrast.

Not trying to bag on legendary here - in fact, I have been very happy with all my dealings with them. I was very happy with this particular purchase, and when the card arrived I was 100% happy with it and didn't feel their scan had given me an unfair perception of the card's appearance.

In fact, I think my scan looks quite a bit better, and has greater eye appeal.

But I agree with the basic premise of this thread, which is that their scans tend to lean towards the "bright" side, color-wise.

[the 'stache]

Hmm, a Nanoscan? Sounds like something Robin Williams might use.



My compliments on your Johnson, Dave. It's just beautiful. That's going to be my first semi-big ticket item within the T206 set, although with a much more common back. I am absolutely in love with that card. Best looking selection from the entire set, imho.

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The difference between these two cards does not come simply from adjusting things like levels, color saturation, etc. Nor would the source of the picture, camera or scanner, account for the discrepancy.

Actually, it can - easily. Just take the top photo, and adjust up the brightness and/or contrast. Lots of the visible dirt will "disappear", including the dirt just above the glove. Actually if you look at the scan on bottom, you can still see just a small amount of brown there. So it wasn't photoshopped out, it is just a brightness/contrast thing.

I agree though, on this particular card, if actual appearance is what shows in the REA scan, the Legendary scan is simply too bright, and overly deemphasizes stains on the card that a prospective buyer ought to see.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

My compliments on your Johnson, Dave. It's just beautiful. That's going to be my first semi-big ticket item within the T206 set, although with a much more common back. I am absolutely in love with that card. Best looking selection from the entire set, imho.

Thanks! It's definitely one of the highlights of my collection. I agree - definitely one of the best, if not the best, poses in the whole set.

[vintagecpa]

For what it is worth, here is the scan from when it sold at Memory Lane. It just looks like a brighter scan.

[honus94566]

Here is what I am talking about... shown here is the REA SCAN. I took the image file and just adjusted the brightness up 10% and contrast up by 30%. As you can see, it looks much cleaner/brighter, and the dirty part just above his glove is almost totally gone.

A camera/scanner set to scan at a higher level of brightness/contrast could easily capture this type of image, no photoshop necessary.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Actually, it can - easily. Just take the top photo, and adjust up the brightness and/or contrast. Lots of the visible dirt will "disappear", including the dirt just above the glove. Actually if you look at the scan on bottom, you can still see just a small amount of brown there. So it wasn't photoshopped out, it is just a brightness/contrast thing.

I agree though, on this particular card, if actual appearance is what shows in the REA scan, the Legendary scan is simply too bright, and overly deemphasizes stains on the card that a prospective buyer ought to see.

I agree it can be done, but it wouldn't occur naturally from the scan alone. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. I'm punchy because I'm drugged up because of my leg, so I'm doing a piss poor job of articulating my thoughts. Please, forgive me

You'd really have to make that adjustment manually.

I just took the original picture, and had to raise the contrast in Photoshop to nearly +50 for the entire dirt cluster above his glove to disappear, leaving the brightness at default. So, they might not have spent a lot of time at it, but the 'shop is still being used to make the card appear more presentable. Either that, or they have a dinosaur of a scanner, and it needs a serious calibration.

Here's the original picture captured after a high contrast adjustment:

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

For what it is worth, here is the scan from when it sold at Memory Lane.

Boy, this card gets around.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Here is what I am talking about... shown here is the REA SCAN. I took the image file and just adjusted the brightness up 10% and contrast up by 30%. As you can see, it looks much cleaner/brighter, and the dirty part just above his glove is almost totally gone.

A camera/scanner set to scan at a higher level of brightness/contrast could easily capture this type of image, no photoshop necessary.

Maybe you're right, but the adjustment is being made somewhere, which I still feel is misleading.

And I agree with you, the scan you took of your Johnson T206 looks much better.

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I agree it can be done, but it wouldn't occur naturally from the scan alone. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. I'm punchy because I'm drugged up because of my leg, so I'm doing a piss poor job of articulating my thoughts. Please, forgive me

You'd really have to make that adjustment manually.

Lol...

I think we are actually agreeing with each other 100% here. I agree, an adjustment could have been made manually.

What I am also saying though, is you can do this type of adjustment "in advance" by just adjusting the settings of the camera or scanner being used, so it captures that type of image in the first place.

In any case, yes it does appear they could use a new scanner, or at least a look at the current scanner settings. I agree that the current scan shown on their site ought to be updated with a scan that appears more true-to-life.

OK. Time for me to go to bed

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Lol...

I think we are actually agreeing with each other 100% here. I agree, an adjustment could have been made manually.

What I am also saying though, is you can do this type of adjustment "in advance" by just adjusting the settings of the camera or scanner being used, so it captures that type of image in the first place.

In any case, yes it does appear Legendary could use a new scanner, or at least a look at the current scanner settings.

I do see what you're saying. I'm just going to go to bed, the meds are shutting my brain down, lol.

[D. Bergin]

Looks like Legendary is doing their scanning in a Document setting (which will de-empahasize toning in whites and off-whites) and REA is doing their scans in a Photo setting with the "UnSharp Mask" turned up to high, which will tend to do the exact opposite but create a sharper looking picture. I'd guess the actual card is somewhere in between the two.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do not believe that there is anything deceitful going on here, the scanning process and software can cause this problem and we have seen this before.
Bob Freedman
CEO, SimpleAuctionSite.

Bob, respectfully, you're full of shit.

[cyseymour]

I've known about this issue for over a year now, and it's frustrating because it's hard to know what the card will really look like when it shows up at your door. Anything is possible, but it's hard to believe that something hasn't been done to the scans - the settings changed, hues adjusted, whatever. I will reserve judgement, but let me just say that in my experience it has made it harder for me to bid. I have bid on a couple cards with them over the last year but often I am left wondering what the card really looks like. Some of their scans of OJ's in the past have been so bright that I just didn't know if I could bid, not knowing what the cards really looked like, since it was impossible for an OJ to really look like that. But it is all subjective.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I recently purchased a CJ card and when I went back to the original Legendary auction the scan was much brighter than the card. They clearly should make an adjustment to more accurately depict the card being auctioned, in my opinion. As we have seen from certain ebay auctions discussed here previously, scans do have the potential to mislead.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do not believe that there is anything deceitful going on here, the scanning process and software can cause this problem and we have seen this before. REA may taken there image with a camera and LA may have scanned their image with a scanner. Also, if one uses different settings (DPI, resolution etc...) that can cause the differences as well. I know you will believe what you want to but this does happen on occasion.

Bob Freedman
CEO, SimpleAuctionSite.

Originally Posted by calvindog

Bob, respectfully, you're full of shit.

+1

If you compare the CJ to other SGC graded cards in this same auction, you will clearly see that the SGC label on the CJ appears much brighter (almost fluorescent) compared to the other SGC labels in the auction, and the insert appears much more grey in the CJ as opposed to black in the other SGC cases in the auction. This is clearly an attempt to deceive potential bidders.

If what you said was true Bob, then all of the SGC labels and inserts should exhibit the same characteristics, but this is clearly not true.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I recently purchased a CJ card and when I went back to the original Legendary auction the scan was much brighter than the card. They clearly should make an adjustment to more accurately depict the card being auctioned, in my opinion. As we have seen from certain ebay auctions discussed here previously, scans do have the potential to mislead.

And by making the scan brighter it causes stains and wrinkles to disappear or lessen. I wonder why the "scanner settings" aren't inadvertently set to make the cards darker, the stains more pronounced? Gee whiz!

Funny how the victims of this fraud -- the bidders -- can trust their eyes not to lie to them but the shills who make money from the auctioneers (Bob) have eyes that see something else.

[Peter_Spaeth]

At least the card looks real. I would rather have an altered scan of a real card than a real scan of an altered card. Plenty of the latter to go around. Of course when you have an altered scan of an altered card, you have hit the jackpot, and that's when world records get set.

[T206Collector]

When buying graded cards online, I always check the whiteness of the flip against some other white on my monitor/screen. A lot of times you can see that the SGC or PSA flip is a bit gray or shadowy. That would indicate to me that the card might be a bit brighter in person.

Conversely, if the SGC or PSA flip is gleaming white, you may have an issue, particularly if the text on the flip appears faded or diluted.

Adjusting photos or video for advertisements is certainly nothing new and has been going on for as long as there have been photographs in advertising. Given the massive move in our hobby to online auctions over the past decade, this phenomena is potentially a growing problem. It will be helpful to know which auction sites do the best job in accurately capturing their cards on film.

We have third party grading to help with the technical grade. Now apparently we need to police the card scanners...

[atx840]

Looks like a brighter scanner setting, mine is set a bit darker to help with SGC slabs.

Legendary compared to Goldin



legendary

goldin

[cyseymour]

The first scan is from Legendary March 2012. The second scan is from Probstein auction that ended last winter. I own this card and can tell you that in real life, the card looks like the Probstein scan. I was willing to bid on it in the probstein auction but not in the Legendary because in the Legendary I just wasn't sure what the card really looked like.

[Leon]

I have no animosity towards anyone at all in this thread. I have a feeling that Legendary might do their scans normally at a higher resolution. So much so it makes the cards look different. I won the E221 Bishops card from them about a year or two ago, from the Drier collection. It looked bright and sharp with very few creases on it, from the scan on the screen. When I got it in hand it was quite different. It was darker and more creases showed. I still liked it and kept it....but before I got it I even told Mark Mac.rae, on the phone, I thought it looked almost Ex in condition. I felt kind of dumb when I got it and it was in fair (but still nice) condition. I think they need to change their settings on their scanners. I told Doug about it but still wanted the card. I am not saying they are doing anything bad, intentionally, but they do need to scan on different, more realistic settings. I like everyone over at Legendary, personally, and I hope everything gets worked out soon. best regards

[bbcard1]

And it doesn't mean the old scan wasn't bad...

[ullmandds]

until large groups of collectors/investors stop bidding in auctions who impart suspect business practices in their auctions...nothing will change.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have no animosity towards anyone at all in this thread. I have a feeling that Legendary might do their scans normally at a higher resolution. So much so it makes the cards look different. I won the E221 Bishops card from them about a year or two ago, from the Drier collection. It looked bright and sharp with very few creases on it, from the scan on the screen. When I got it in hand it was quite different. It was darker and more creases showed. I still liked it and kept it....but before I got it I even told Mark Mac.rae, on the phone, I thought it looked almost Ex in condition. I felt kind of dumb when I got it and it was in fair (but still nice) condition. I think they need to change their settings on their scanners. I told Doug about it but still wanted the card. I am not saying they are doing anything bad, intentionally, but they do need to scan on different, more realistic settings. I like everyone over at Legendary, personally, and I hope everything gets worked out soon. best regards

But Doug just said above he's never had a complaint about this issue in the 5 years Legendary has been in business. Doug -- probably best to either shut up or stop lying at this point -- assuming that's possible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

until large groups of collectors/investors stop bidding in auctions who impart suspect business practices in their auctions...nothing will change.

Stuff trumps all.

[Ladder7]

A bunch of foolish sympathizers... Blatent deception here, nothing else.

[ullmandds]

All hail...STUFF!!!!!

[Exhibitman]

They've long been known for this crap. I think of it the same as an old timer auctioneer whose descriptions of their stuff somehow always is a grade or two above reality. Deplorable but sadly not rare in this business. Still you'd think that someone under indictment for being an auction pig would be squeaky clean.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dallen

I will review the actual card tomorrow and if in fact our scan is inaccurate we will correct it. Additionally if we do make a mistake and a scan depicts a card materially different than it actually appears we will take the card back and provide a full refund. I don't believe we have had a single complaint like this in the 5 years Legendary has been in business. As always if anyone sees an issue in our catalog we appreciate your pointing it out so we can make the necessary corrections. Since I don't frequent this site emails to dallen@legendaryauctions.com are appreciated.

Well, I am sure we all have conversations we don't remember but I do remember this one distinctly...and we had 1-2 on the phone about it too. You guys really do need to fix this scanning issue.......Here is a partial discussion about it below, but again, there was a more explicit one on the phone. And to your credit you offered to make it right...but I wanted the card. But we had this discussion mostly on the phone, as I remember....(and for the most part emails shouldn't be posted on the board but there is nothing here that is too private)




From: Leon Luckey [mailto:leonl@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:26 PM
To: Doug Allen (dallen@legendaryauctions.com)
Subject: scan of e221

Hey Doug
I think you can look at the one on your site easy enough but here is a regular scan I did….Not a big deal but just thought I would let you know.
LL




.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

All hail...STUFF!!!!!

Yup. If Al Qaeda ran an auction it probably would do well as long as it featured strong material.

[ullmandds]

if I were in the card auction business...or any bb card related business...I'd frequent this site...you'd be a fool not to see what your customers are saying?!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Well, I am sure we all have conversations we don't remember but I do remember this one distinctly...and we had 1-2 on the phone about it too. You guys really do need to fix this scanning issue.......Here is a partial discussion about it below, but again, there was a more explicit one on the phone. And to your credit you offered to make it right...but I wanted the card. But we had this discussion mostly on the phone, as I remember....(and for the most part emails shouldn't be posted on the board but there is nothing here that is too private)




From: Leon Luckey [mailto:leonl@flash.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 8:26 PM
To: Doug Allen (dallen@legendaryauctions.com)
Subject: scan of e221

Hey Doug
I think you can look at the one on your site easy enough but here is a regular scan I did….Not a big deal but just thought I would let you know.
LL




.

Doug Allen is a pathological liar. He also claimed on this board years ago that he wasn't engaging in shill bidding and other fraud while at Mastro. He lied then and he lied now. When he finally ends up before a judge to pay for his crimes, I implore everyone on this board to write a letter to the judge describing the lengths he went to conceal and perpetuate his fraud.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Conor, I don't believe I said that anyone made their image "dirtier", my point is that you take an image on two different types of equipment with different settings, you will get different results.

By the way, Bob, perhaps you might want to mention that Doug -- and Legendary -- uses your company for its auctions. In a perfect world you'd be in the cell next to Doug.