This is the problem with grading...

[SetBuilder]

I'm sure the optical algorithims can be modified to higher accuracy. As far as detecting if a card is authentic or not, I think that's what a grader's job should be. When a card is sent to PSA, an authenticator first determines if the card is indeed real, then scans the card into the grading computer for final analysis and numerical grading. In essence, the professional grader's job is now limited to determining if a card is real or not before a computer does the actual grading.

I also think computer grading can put a stop to resubmissions over and over for grade bumps. If a computer can scan a card and determine that it has been submitted before, it can reject that submission, or at the very least, not double count the pop report.

Somehow the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that grading companies want people to submit cards over and over, and may actually prefer inaccurate grades.

[Peter_Spaeth]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-Topps-W...item20ca96c5ec

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-Topps-W...item20ca96c5ec

So someone bought it and consigned to another seller that quickly

[smtjoy]

Just my guess but if you look the same buyer purchased the PSA 8 from Probstein123 and then when it was upgraded to a PSA 9 and relisted they win the card again from Probstein123, sure looks like a consignor bidder/shill won his own card the second time so then they decide to consign it over to PWCC and they now know the ceiling bid of the two underbidders ($701.77 and $575) from the last auction. I wonder if they tried a second chance offer on the underbidder and they declined so just relist it with another consignor. This is getting old.

First sale won by - p***e

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1070wt_1038

Second sale after the upgrade from PSA to a 9, winning bidder is - p***e

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1050wt_1038

Now listed again by PWCC......

[Matthew H]

So it's ok for a consignor to buy his cards back from an auction???? This is not considered shilling as long as they pay the premium? I always assumed I was bidding against other potential buyers in an honest auction.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

So it's ok for a consignor to buy his cards back from an auction???? This is not considered shilling as long as they pay the premium? I always assumed I was bidding against other potential buyers in an honest auction.

It's not considered a shill. He placed one max bid, and as long as eBay gets paid, no problem.


Does anyone know it eBay has any specific rules about consignments? This is a relatively new area and while they prohibit (and prevent) someone from bidding on their own listing, I'm not sure that ownership is a qualifying factor currently.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

Just my guess but if you look the same buyer purchased the PSA 8 from Probstein123 and then when it was upgraded to a PSA 9 and relisted they win the card again from Probstein123, sure looks like a consignor bidder/shill won his own card the second time so then they decide to consign it over to PWCC and they now know the ceiling bid of the two underbidders ($701.77 and $575) from the last auction. I wonder if they tried a second chance offer on the underbidder and they declined so just relist it with another consignor. This is getting old.

First sale won by - p***e

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1070wt_1038

Second sale after the upgrade from PSA to a 9, winning bidder is - p***e

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ht_1050wt_1038

Now listed again by PWCC......

According to the feedback given by the seller on Jun-07-12 22:25, the 8 was purchased by "kopitars_corner".

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by smtjoy

Just my guess but if you look the same buyer purchased the PSA 8 from Probstein123 and then when it was upgraded to a PSA 9 and relisted they win the card again from Probstein123, sure looks like a consignor bidder/shill won his own card the second time so then they decide to consign it over to PWCC and they now know the ceiling bid of the two underbidders ($701.77 and $575) from the last auction. I wonder if they tried a second chance offer on the underbidder and they declined so just relist it with another consignor. This is getting old.

Wow! As a seller, how could Probstein not know this? Especially when he mails the card and the auction check to the same address! But I'm sure someone will chime in, making excuses for him saying that he does a lot of volume, blah, blah, blah and doesn't pay attention to all that.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow! As a seller, how could Probstein not know this? Especially when he mails the card and the auction check to the same address! But I'm sure someone will chime in, making excuses for him saying that he does a lot of volume, blah, blah, blah and doesn't pay attention to all that.

Hmmm.... Moral outrage from a guy who dodges jury duty. How can anyone take it seriously considering the source.

Steve B

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ok, I'll admit it. I've never served jury duty a day in my life (and I'm 41 years old). In my house, those notices get thrown away.

Think of me as you wish, but I work for a living and don't have time for that. I'm not trying to sound harsh, but let them call the people that are unemployeed and living on unemployment assistance. After all, we're giving them money, let them earn it.

I don't mean to offend anyone that's unemployeed, I've been there myself and wish that on no one. My point is that they have the time and there are plenty of folks to pool from (and they're being paid anyway).

Originally Posted by steve B

Hmmm.... Moral outrage from a guy who dodges jury duty. How can anyone take it seriously considering the source.

Steve B

+1

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Hmmm.... Moral outrage from a guy who dodges jury duty. How can anyone take it seriously considering the source.

Steve B

When I made that statement, I knew it would offend some of the self righteous hypocrites on the board. Obviously it did. At least I have the balls to speak the truth, whether you agree with what I said or not.

I don’t see any difference between dodging jury duty or the other folks in that thread speaking of ways to dodge it or asking advice on how to dodge it. Why didn’t you address those folks? Because your comment wasn’t really about jury duty, was it? It was really a way to divert the attention from the real issue here - Probstein allowing his bidders to shill their own auctions.

The smart ones will see that and stick to the issue, the dumb ones will make additional comments about jury duty.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow! As a seller, how could Probstein not know this? Especially when he mails the card and the auction check to the same address! But I'm sure someone will chime in, making excuses for him saying that he does a lot of volume, blah, blah, blah and doesn't pay attention to all that.

I'm sure Probstein is quite aware of the situation, and we honestly have no way of knowing how/if they're handling it. I would hope they would no longer accept consignments from this person/user.

The solution is quite simple really. The problem here is that Probstein has no power as the Ebay seller, as per Ebay's rules, to not complete the transaction with the winning bidder unless specific conditions are listed in the auctions. Probsten would have to, and more importanly should have to, specifically write into their auction listing that the consignor is not eligible to bid on the auction. And they should require any consignor to release to them their Ebay ID prior to listing.

[Matthew H]

I've always wondered what's the point of consigning an item to a seller on eBay... Now I know! It's a legal shilling loophole! Wow what a bunh of greedy bastards.

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

I'm sure the optical algorithims can be modified to higher accuracy. As far as detecting if a card is authentic or not, I think that's what a grader's job should be. When a card is sent to PSA, an authenticator first determines if the card is indeed real, then scans the card into the grading computer for final analysis and numerical grading. In essence, the professional grader's job is now limited to determining if a card is real or not before a computer does the actual grading.

I also think computer grading can put a stop to resubmissions over and over for grade bumps. If a computer can scan a card and determine that it has been submitted before, it can reject that submission, or at the very least, not double count the pop report.

Somehow the conspiracy theorist in me thinks that grading companies want people to submit cards over and over, and may actually prefer inaccurate grades.

I think I stated all that already in what I am working on.

[Copa7]

A very, very interesting thread.

I am grateful that it remains uncensored here on net54.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Pup6913

I think I stated all that already in what I am working on.

Are you a software developer or engineer?

I've pondered the idea of developing image processing software to look at centering, registration, corners, edges, and to look for creases, paper loss, fading, etc. It would be a monumental task, and would require custom code (or a template of some sort) for each type card.

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Are you a software developer or engineer?

I've pondered the idea of developing image processing software to look at centering, registration, corners, edges, and to look for creases, paper loss, fading, etc. It would be a monumental task, and would require custom code (or a template of some sort) for each type card.

Well I am an engineer but not software. That's my hangup and why it's gonna cost so much to develope.