1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary

[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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.

We can certainly agree to disagree. I disagree with you.
If you aren't making mistakes you aren't doing enough. It's how mistakes are handled that makes the difference, to me. And to me it DOES matter if they are malicious and/or intentional mistakes. If they are intentional or malicious I have less patience for them.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Leon

We can certainly agree to disagree. I disagree with you.
If you aren't making mistakes you aren't doing enough. It's how mistakes are handled that makes the difference, to me. And to me it DOES matter if they are malicious and/or intentional mistakes. If they are intentional or malicious I have less patience for them.

Fair enough, but when I go through the process of tracking an auction, bidding, sending my money to someone else and anticipating a new addition to my collection only to be disappointed when it arrives, a mere refund/return doesn't make me less disappointed or willing to go back to that AH.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by conor912

Fair enough, but when I go through the process of tracking an auction, bidding, sending my money to someone else and anticipating a new addition to my collection only to be disappointed when it arrives, a mere refund/return doesn't make me less disappointed or willing to go back to that AH.

I agree that it sucks to waste our time on something and have to return it. As an addicted collector I will almost always go back, but be more careful, if there is something I truly want. Just being honest about it. To each their own though. One thing's for sure, there are plenty of places in the hobby to spend our money.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.

Especially when those available funds could have gone somewhere else.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Especially when those available funds could have gone somewhere else.

Don't even get me started

[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.

[benjulmag]

In my view the most important point to take from this thread is that one should never acquire an item based on an assumption an on-line scan or catalog image is accurate. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the auction house. When there is an item I am interested in bidding on and I know I will not be able to see it in person, I will call the AH and ask them to take the item in hand and then compare it to what it looks like in the catalog or on-line, as the case may be. If I have a catalog of the auction, I will have these discussions based on catalog images, not on-line images. The latter can vary with one's monitor and monitor settings. Catalogs, in contrast, do not vary. I remember an instance over 25 years ago when I was at a well-known print shop in NYC. It has been owned and operated by three generations of a family and enjoys universal respect. There was an upcoming auction at Christies and I wanted the print shop's opinion on a particular item in the auction. I showed the owner's son the catalog image and asked his opinion. As he was answering his father interrupted and admonished him for opining on an item based on the catalog image. The basis for the admonition was not that Christies would intentionally make the item look better than it actually was, but that one had to see it in person to really know all the nuances of its condition and eye appeal.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

In my view the most important point to take from this thread is that one should never acquire an item based on an assumption an on-line scan or catalog image is accurate. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the auction house. When there is an item I am interested in bidding on and I know I will not be able to see it in person, I will call the AH and ask them to take the item in hand and then compare it to what it looks like in the catalog or on-line, as the case may be. If I have a catalog of the auction, I will have these discussions based on catalog images, not on-line images. The latter can vary with one's monitor and monitor settings. Catalogs, in contrast, do not vary. I remember an instance over 25 years ago when I was at a well-known print shop in NYC. It has been owned and operated by three generations of a family and enjoys universal respect. There was an upcoming auction at Christies and I wanted the print shop's opinion on a particular item in the auction. I showed the owner's son the catalog image and asked his opinion. As he was answering his father interrupted and admonished him for opining on an item based on the catalog image. The basis for the admonition was not that Christies would intentionally make the item look better than it actually was, but that one had to see it in person to really know all the nuances of its condition and eye appeal.

It is important to realize that, yes, an online scan may not be completely accurate, but also important to realize that certain auction houses may be intentionally doing things to alter scans to their own liking, manipulating collectors and prices. I agree with Conor that simply being willing to accept refunds is no excuse. For instance, the situation with Leon - he got the card he needed and was willing to keep it, but maybe he would have gotten it for less if it were accurately represented. In that case, the allegedly artificially enhanced scan served as a shill.

Realistically, we cannot all go back to looking at the cards in real life. People are bidding from afar and there is no guarantee that one will win an item. You cannot expect everyone who is interested in an item to purchase an airplane ticket, hotel rooms and car rentals just to see an item in person - it is simply not practical. Maybe fifty years ago, every auction was live and it was possible to have the standard of seeing every item live before evaluating it, but nowadays we rely on the auction houses, and that it a matter of technology and modern life.

My view is that Legendary/Mastro has gotten itself in trouble before, not for its bidding practices, but for a failure to disclose its bidding practices. For instance, Heritage discloses in their terms that the house is a potential bidder for every item, yet many collectors participate in their auctions anyways, and it rarely comes up as a topic for debate. Same for the controversy of Legendary's alleged scan altering - if they simply disclosed such practices in the terms of their auction, they would be covered. Their practices could be a matter for debate, but their integrity could not.

[rainier2004]

Alright guys, I really think everyone is missing the point here.

IMO, it is the AH's responsibility to accurately scan the cards and provide as accurate of a description as possible. Whether the scans were or were not altered or intentionally or unintentionally altered (although if scans are being altered then I believe that is a state and federal offense and should not be tolerated)then who cares? Should major AH like REA, LA, HA, etc. set the standards for cards to be professionally and accurately graded? I mean ebay can be a total crap shoot, but if Im paying 15+% b/p then that card better look like the scans/description. If I bought another product online and it came with undisclosed defects, it would be sent back and my money refunded so why tolerate in the AH world? It is every AHs responsibility to ensure the scans and description are accurate.

S Suckow

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rainier2004

.... I mean ebay can be a total crap shoot, but if Im paying 15+% b/p then that card better look like the scans/description.....
S Suckow

Ebay fees aren't much less. However, I do agree that scans on line should closely mirror a cards true visual appearance. I don't care what venue or who is doing it. Legendary clearly has some work to do in this area (as do some other online sellers).

[chipperhank44]

I guess you could always just have mystery auctions. Maybe the brightness has been altered, maybe it has not....maybe there are defects behind the hidden portions of the card, maybe there are not.....

[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.