The most unscannable cards

[Runscott]

Seeing the T3 Cobb posted recently, got me thinking about cards that you just can't do justice with a scanner. T3's seem to be the most difficult to really capture their beauty.

[glchen]

Cards in the largest Beckett holders are nearly impossible to scan, not because of the size, but because of the glare that results.

[drc]

I use a digital camera now, but in the old days some cards with dot patterns gave moire patterns. Including Topps cards.

[CW]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Seeing the T3 Cobb posted recently, got me thinking about cards that you just can't do justice with a scanner. T3's seem to be the most difficult to really capture their beauty.

I might add Cracker Jack cards. While they don't look necessarily bad when scanned, you just can't capture the true colors of the red background and the way it appears in hand.

I'd agree on the T3's as well. One of the cool things about T3's is their texture. The front surface isn't exactly smooth -- they almost have an orange peel-like texture. It's also hard to replicate the size of a T3 in a scan, unless you put something like a quarter or dime next to it (but who would actually be nerdy enough to do something like that??! ).

If we're allowing modern cards in this discussion, the shiny SP cards of Jeter and A-Rod are tough to scan and show their true appeal.

[JeremyW]

I've had problems in the past with Black & white issues (E121, exhibits, etc.) Strange dot patterns in the scan.

[Vintagecatcher]

W600s scan a bid odd.


Patrick