![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Old dog, same tricks?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
strange cuz the holder ID # is the same. Was the card removed from the holder? Or scanned differently?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I thought the 1914 CJ fell apart if soaked, due to the thin card stock. Does anyone here have some insight about this?
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The card is in the same holder. Probably only the scan difference.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Nice try Jeff, but real magicians never reveal their secrets unless subpoenaed.
Lovely Day... |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Doug -- I'm sending this to your sentencing judge to show him that you're still defrauding people, even while facing federal fraud charges.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
Last edited by honus94566; 08-13-2013 at 09:19 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
Items for sale or trade here UPDATED 3-16-18 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
And it doesn't mean the old scan wasn't bad...
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A little perspective and courtesy please | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 05-01-2006 10:28 PM |
1914 CJ Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 04-15-2006 04:17 PM |
The $1,300 bath - can someone explain this? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 11-07-2005 12:23 PM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 11-13-2003 08:43 AM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-23-2002 11:31 AM |