1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary

[g_vezina_c55]

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

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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




.

[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.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Leon

And to your credit you offered to make it right...but I wanted the card.

I know I am both going slightly off topic and making an assumption for this particular case, but I have never considered a seller's willingness to accept a return in exchange for a refund "making it right", particularly when there is misrepresenting involved, malicious or not.

[CaramelMan]

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.

so I guess you forgot about Leon's minor issue...

[the 'stache]

The one on the left looks like a baseball card I'd put in my lock box. The one on the right looks like something I might set my beer glass on.

[CW]

This was brought up previously in this thread started by Jeff back in April of this year. As mentioned in that thread, this has been going on for some time. It's hard to say if this is on purpose, or just a case of someone not knowing how to properly scan a card.

I have also seen this with Heritage, and again, I am not claiming that this is being done to deceive, as it might just be the result of a bad scanner.

Off the top of my head, some auction houses that get the scans "right" are REA, Love of the Game, Huggins & Scott, and Goodwin (although Goodwin's could be slightly more accurate). I'm sure other auction houses offer accurate scans as well. Ultimately, it's not easy to get a perfect representation of how a card looks in hand. Some scanners are great out of the box, others... not so much.

Here's a card from Heritage that shows the difference in one of their scans (the upper scan from the auction site, the lower one from my scanner, a Canon CanoScan 5600f). I was happy with the card, as I could tell by the flip that the contrast was jacked up, so I knew what to expect in terms of color.

When creases, wrinkles, dirt, smudges, etc. get covered up by high contrast, this becomes a problem.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Ladder7]

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

[ullmandds]

All hail...STUFF!!!!!