pwcc

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[jtschantz]

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by jtschantz

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

Another one at random. October 10.

[sam majors]

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

[dstudeba]

Val and I agree to agree that Leon should part with his E222.

Hi Val.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

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.

[Eric72]

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

[npa589]

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

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

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

At least he is showing initiative.

[slipk1068]

Won this card 9/29/2013 in a PWCC auction. 1st scan is the PWCC scan, 2nd scan I just made 5 minutes ago.

I saved the PWCC scan as a JPEG. My scan is using a Cannon MX870 scanner 300dpi. All I did was put the card in the scanner and switch from "Black and White Documents" to "Color Photo" then saved it as a JPEG.

A fellow board member (Donk) once implied that I altered a scan of a $10 card I was auctioning on Net54, so consider that when comparing the 2 if you choose to believe I (or anyone) would alter a scan to sell a $10 poor condition T206.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by slipk1068

Won this card 9/29/2013 in a PWCC auction. 1st scan is the PWCC scan, 2nd scan I just made 5 minutes ago.

I saved the PWCC scan as a JPEG. My scan is using a Cannon MX870 scanner 300dpi. All I did was put the card in the scanner and switch from "Black and White Documents" to "Color Photo" then saved it as a JPEG.

A fellow board member (Donk) once implied that I altered a scan of a $10 card I was auctioning on Net54, so consider that when comparing the 2 if you choose to believe I (or anyone) would alter a scan to sell a $10 poor condition T206.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

The Canon MX870 is an all-in-one printer. Those devices take terrible scans. They don't have CCD technology. That's why your scan looks so poor in comparison to the PWCC scan.

[dstudeba]

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.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by dstudeba

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.

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

[Runscott]

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

[HRBAKER]

Just don't start twerking your scans.

[JoeyF1981]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

Just don't start twerking your scans.

lmao

[slipk1068]

http://offer.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=350846238664


Does anyone believe this bid history looks legit?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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.

[nolemmings]

Bamberger cards are all over the place and again, the two shown are different and almost certainly the product of two different scanners. Here are three more on Ebay that I "randomly" picked. Do they look more like PWCCs scan or the other one selected by our objective reporter? Also, search 1959 Bamberger and see the variety of tones exhibited.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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.

The scanner technology doesn't matter as much for color/contrast as it does for focus. CCD is indeed better for items with any sort of depth.

But the software usually makes it's own adjustments. Mine is actually CCD and old. But the new software makes it's own adjustments. I can actually see the adjustment being made. I do a preview scan, then select the area and once the area is selected that area changes compared to the rest of the background. Since I scan with the lid open to get a black background it darkens the entire scanned area so the background is truly black.

The old version of the software would not make that adjustment, so if for instance the lamp beside the scanner was on the background would scan as blackish changing to a dark red in the area closer to the lamp.
As an interesting tech note, the range of the CCD sensor Epson used is somewhat more than 2 feet! One scan with the lamp on had the lamp itself recognizable in the background.

I believe my scanner is adjusting the white balance as it goes, but that's going off recalling my familys first video camera needing the white balance set before each use. If it wasn't done the colors were usually way off.

So I know Epson autoadjusts, and from what I'm reading Cannon probably does as well. Other brands might not, or might do it in a way that's less accurate.

We should also recall that monitors don't display color the same either. And that the flat screen ones are dependent on the viewing angle. On mine viewing from an angle below the monitor (Like reclining a bit in an office chair with the monitor at a slight upward angle) results in black appearing blue.

The scans Peter shows do appear to be a bit oversaturated for color, but as someone else showed the colors used for the cards also varied.

Steve B

[cyseymour]

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!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Correct, new scanners (assuming you mean those with CCD technology) shouldn't need adjusting.

Finally, you admit it!

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

But, from looking at certain seller's scans, it's obvious they're not all using that type of scanner. So again, your blanket comment about scanner settings never needing adjustment is STILL WRONG. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Finally, you admit it!

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.

Originally Posted by cyseymour

The auction houses should never have to adjust the settings because they should all be using the modern scanners. Duh.

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?