1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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.

Then Legendary needs to get new equipment, or give scanning lessons to his employees. I'm sure Doug will take care of it.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by 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.

By the way, Bob, perhaps you might want to mention that Doug -- and Legendary -- uses your company for its auctions. In a perfect world you'd be in the cell next to Doug.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

By the way, Bob, perhaps you might want to mention that Doug -- and Legendary -- uses your company for its auctions. In a perfect world you'd be in the cell next to Doug.

Bob is one of the most honest guys I know. I trust him implicitly. (and he hosts my auction s/w and has done a superb job of it). I wish nothing but continued success for him and his company.

[Al C.risafulli]

Bob's company also hosts my auctions, and I find him completely trustworthy.

-Al

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

Bob's company also hosts my auctions, and I find him completely trustworthy.

-Al

Then maybe he should get his eyes fixed? Or stop lying about the Legendary scans that everyone with working eyes can see were manipulated in order to take away wrinkles and stains?

[bigwinnerx]

I try to make sure the scan looks as bad as possible so that when the card arrives, the high bidder is pleasantly surprised.

[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.

[the 'stache]

Hmm, a Nanoscan? Sounds like something Robin Williams might use.



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.

[vintagecpa]

For what it is worth, here is the scan from when it sold at Memory Lane. It just looks like a brighter scan.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by vintagecpa

For what it is worth, here is the scan from when it sold at Memory Lane.

Boy, this card gets around.

[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.

[honus94566]

Here is what I am talking about... shown here is the REA SCAN. I took the image file and just adjusted the brightness up 10% and contrast up by 30%. As you can see, it looks much cleaner/brighter, and the dirty part just above his glove is almost totally gone.

A camera/scanner set to scan at a higher level of brightness/contrast could easily capture this type of image, no photoshop necessary.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Here is what I am talking about... shown here is the REA SCAN. I took the image file and just adjusted the brightness up 10% and contrast up by 30%. As you can see, it looks much cleaner/brighter, and the dirty part just above his glove is almost totally gone.

A camera/scanner set to scan at a higher level of brightness/contrast could easily capture this type of image, no photoshop necessary.

Maybe you're right, but the adjustment is being made somewhere, which I still feel is misleading.

And I agree with you, the scan you took of your Johnson T206 looks much better.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

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.

I agree it can be done, but it wouldn't occur naturally from the scan alone. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. I'm punchy because I'm drugged up because of my leg, so I'm doing a piss poor job of articulating my thoughts. Please, forgive me

You'd really have to make that adjustment manually.

I just took the original picture, and had to raise the contrast in Photoshop to nearly +50 for the entire dirt cluster above his glove to disappear, leaving the brightness at default. So, they might not have spent a lot of time at it, but the 'shop is still being used to make the card appear more presentable. Either that, or they have a dinosaur of a scanner, and it needs a serious calibration.

Here's the original picture captured after a high contrast adjustment:

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I agree it can be done, but it wouldn't occur naturally from the scan alone. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. I'm punchy because I'm drugged up because of my leg, so I'm doing a piss poor job of articulating my thoughts. Please, forgive me

You'd really have to make that adjustment manually.

Lol...

I think we are actually agreeing with each other 100% here. I agree, an adjustment could have been made manually.

What I am also saying though, is you can do this type of adjustment "in advance" by just adjusting the settings of the camera or scanner being used, so it captures that type of image in the first place.

In any case, yes it does appear they could use a new scanner, or at least a look at the current scanner settings. I agree that the current scan shown on their site ought to be updated with a scan that appears more true-to-life.

OK. Time for me to go to bed

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Lol...

I think we are actually agreeing with each other 100% here. I agree, an adjustment could have been made manually.

What I am also saying though, is you can do this type of adjustment "in advance" by just adjusting the settings of the camera or scanner being used, so it captures that type of image in the first place.

In any case, yes it does appear Legendary could use a new scanner, or at least a look at the current scanner settings.

I do see what you're saying. I'm just going to go to bed, the meds are shutting my brain down, lol.

[D. Bergin]

Looks like Legendary is doing their scanning in a Document setting (which will de-empahasize toning in whites and off-whites) and REA is doing their scans in a Photo setting with the "UnSharp Mask" turned up to high, which will tend to do the exact opposite but create a sharper looking picture. I'd guess the actual card is somewhere in between the two.

[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.