1914 CJ Mathewson Receives a Bath Courtesy of Legendary

[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

[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.

[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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Compare, if you will, scans of the CJ Cobb now in Al's auction with one in Legendary a couple of years back. Hint Legendary's is the brighter one.

[ullmandds]

obviously not the same cobb...but...the brightness of legendary's scans is downright off-putting. In this case the bright cobb looks ridiculous...next to the more accurate scan.

[calvindog]

That's not the same card, is it?

Edited to add: whew. And I agree with Pete, that Legendary scan is insane. Why not just make the scans completely white to ensure that no staining or creases can be seen?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's not the same card, is it?

Edited to add: whew. And I agree with Pete, that Legendary scan is insane. Why not just make the scans completely white to ensure that no staining or creases can be seen?

In this day and age a scan of the flip might be enough.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In this day and age a scan of the flip might be enough.

Please don't give Doug any ideas.

Edited to add: maybe the gypsies who stole Lionel Carter's cards will start an auction company....?

[ullmandds]

in the legendary cobb scan...somehow they managed to transfer the normal CJ staining from the cobb card... to the Flip...Amazing Magic!!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.....

[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).

[botn]

Originally Posted by calvindog

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=24903

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...---SGC-40-VG-3

Or just a scan which completely misrepresents what the card actually looks like.

Hal Lewis???? Is that you, Hal? Seriously Jeff, nice to see you back. Were it not for your perception that Legendary is committing fraud we might never hear from you. Thought you might post the other day on the Memory Lane thread given your interest in keeping the hobby clean but I guess you like their scans and, like so many here, they have always shipped the cards you have won.

[CaramelMan]

Originally Posted by Leon

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).

I think he means as a buyer...

No Buyers premium on ebay...Ebay is ALWAYS a better place to buy a card when the seller is KNOWN TO BE REPUTABLE...

ebay is better for buyers, worse for sellers.

Auction house, better for seller, worse for buyer...

IMO, the Buyers Premiums are out of hand...especially when you get to a thousand dollar lot...what are auction houses doing so great that makes them entitled to such easy money?

and shill bids can never be stopped....it may not be the AH owner or employess, but I assume that the AH's Uncle Jimmy is making a few bids to help out his nephew's auction house...

[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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

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).

It must be working for them or they wouldnt do it.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by botn

Hal Lewis???? Is that you, Hal? Seriously Jeff, nice to see you back. Were it not for your perception that Legendary is committing fraud we might never hear from you. Thought you might post the other day on the Memory Lane thread given your interest in keeping the hobby clean but I guess you like their scans and, like so many here, they have always shipped the cards you have won.

Did you take your Klonopin today?

[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.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Compare, if you will, scans of the CJ Cobb now in Al's auction with one in Legendary a couple of years back. Hint Legendary's is the brighter one.

Now this card is IMO a great example of scam, er, scan manipulation. You don't get a flip like that from scanning. The flip is roached because of extensive UV light exposure, likely from fluorescent lighting. I've had the same thing happen with SGC flips on items displayed in my office. The card itself likely shows fading as well. But jack up the contrast and add intensity of color and flash to the scan and it boosts the red.

[bijoem]

this is all bringing back bad memories of that SCP(?) photo -
where the item actually looked like it was chewed by a dog, while the auction scan looked impeccable.

I believe that was a "wonder-scan" explanation too.

[CaramelMan]

that has to be the worst argument i have ever heard..a bad/poor quality scanner..

we are talking about Million dollar companies, some near BILLION dollar companies, and they use a cheap scanner?????

DONT THINK SO....they use VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT as SCANS are the lifeblood of their business...Scanners so good they can make any enhancements possible...

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by CaramelMan

that has to be the worst argument i have ever heard..a bad/poor quality scanner..

we are talking about Million dollar companies, some near BILLION dollar companies, and they use a cheap scanner?????

DONT THINK SO....they use VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT as SCANS are the lifeblood of their business...Scanners so good they can make any enhancements possible...

I visited the Mastro offices in 2004 or 2005 and was shocked at how stuff was just laying around...it was a very secure building, but seemed like a pretty messy office environment...none of the equipment looked like it was industrial or anything special. Of course that was 8 or 9 years ago now...

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by CaramelMan

that has to be the worst argument i have ever heard..a bad/poor quality scanner..

we are talking about Million dollar companies, some near BILLION dollar companies, and they use a cheap scanner?????

DONT THINK SO....they use VERY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT as SCANS are the lifeblood of their business...Scanners so good they can make any enhancements possible...

You don't even need an expensive scanner. A good scanner, with the proper lighting and scanning element, will produce great pictures. I'm using an eight year old Canon Canoscan 8400F, and I can get beautiful scans like this:



I use Photoshop, but most of what I'm doing is reducing image size (I scan at 400 dpi then reduce down), cropping, and then some very minor level adjusting. If I can get accurate scans, they sure as hell can do the same on much more expensive equipment. There's no excuse for auction houses to be posting pictures that aren't accurate representations of what they are selling. None.

[Jayworld]

"I use Photoshop, but most of what I'm doing is reducing image size (I scan at 400 dpi then reduce down), cropping, and then some very minor level adjusting. If I can get accurate scans, they sure as hell can do the same on much more expensive equipment. There's no excuse for auction houses to be posting pictures that aren't accurate representations of what they are selling. None."

I readily concur. I've been a graphic designer for over 25 years, and high-end scanners do make a big difference in images. An expert in Photoshop, however, can turn a muddy or dark scan into a very presentable image. For instance, the Filter Unsharp Mask (depending on the settings) can make an image brighter, sharper, and if applied to scans of graded cards, can make the white highlights of the plastic cases even more whiter, etc.

It does not take a whole lot of effort to create a workable scanning "system" in which the same settings are applied to each scan, including slight modifications within Photoshop, to make the card image mirror very closely the real-life counterpart.

[Leon]

I use a $200 USB Microtek flatbed scanner. Nothing fancy at all. All of my cards look fairly identical whether on a computer screen or in hand. It's not rocket science. I have seen some long winded explanations in emails but the bottom line doesn't have to do with any fancily worded reasoning. Either the card looks the same on the screen, as in hand, or not.

[bijoem]

Originally Posted by Leon

Either the card looks the same on the screen, as in hand, or not.

well said.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Jayworld

"I use Photoshop, but most of what I'm doing is reducing image size (I scan at 400 dpi then reduce down), cropping, and then some very minor level adjusting. If I can get accurate scans, they sure as hell can do the same on much more expensive equipment. There's no excuse for auction houses to be posting pictures that aren't accurate representations of what they are selling. None."

I readily concur. I've been a graphic designer for over 25 years, and high-end scanners do make a big difference in images. An expert in Photoshop, however, can turn a muddy or dark scan into a very presentable image. For instance, the Filter Unsharp Mask (depending on the settings) can make an image brighter, sharper, and if applied to scans of graded cards, can make the white highlights of the plastic cases even more whiter, etc.

You know, Jay, it never occurred to me to use the unsharp mask. The difference is startling:

Original-------->same scan with default unsharp mask



The subject is a little blurry in the original scan. The detail is so much clearer in the second, and the flip is whiter, and easier to read.

Thank you for that. I'll have to useit from now on.

[Runscott]

It only takes a small amount of manipulation to make the REA scan look like the Legendary scan. Any child could do it.