pwcc

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"At any rate, I greatly appreciate Brent responding and that is a major, MAJOR first step that I think everyone here can respect."

Given that he started his post with a blatant lie (saying he had never heard the concern about scans before, when he had made a lengthy response to a thread on CU on precisely that point just a few months ago, as posted above), I respectfullly dissent from that assessment.

Kind of hard to continue reading his post after the obvious lie at the beginning. In a trial, the jury would be given an instruction that they could infer that the rest of his "testimony" is filled with lies as well.

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

I don't know, but the obvious solution is that auction houses ought to disclose in their terms exactly which scanner it is that they're using and what exactly the settings are.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I don't know, but the obvious solution is that auction houses ought to disclose in their terms exactly which scanner it is that they're using and what exactly the settings are.

Or they could simply stop screwing around with the scans in an effort to hide the flaws of the cards they're selling.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Or they could simply stop screwing around with the scans in an effort to hide the flaws of the cards they're selling.

If they revealed which scanner/settings they were using, it would go a long way towards accomplishing that.

[calvindog]

I don't know any of my scanner settings -- but I know which cards I've tweaked to make them look brighter. This isn't rocket science. Brent knows exactly what he's doing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't know any of my scanner settings -- but I know which cards I've tweaked to make them look brighter. This isn't rocket science. Brent knows exactly what he's doing.

Congrats on your 3,000th post.

There is no question that Brent knows what he's doing. And there's no question the other AH's do as well. It's a question of what we can do. It could be difficult to force the ones who are image editing to change. Constructive steps need to be taken. Auction houses that don't image edit can put that in their terms and it could be a boon to them. It shows that they have committed to a clean auction.

As for the ones that change their settings, we don't have to like it. But having them disclose it in their terms would still be a major step forward. Until this afternoon, not a single AH had confessed to changing scanner settings. Brent stepped forward and became accountable. That is much better than the mystery game we were playing previously. It doesn't make him a hero, but it is a big step.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Brent stepped forward and became accountable.

Respectfully, I disagree completely. Brent responded with a bullshit lie because he felt pressured to respond. Blaming it on our monitors? Please. For some reason my monitor works fine when viewing Rob Lifson's scans, not so fine when viewing Brent's.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Edited to add: why is it only suspect auction houses which have difficulty wth their scanners? And why is the gosh darned settings errors always such that the scans are too bright to capture any wrinkles or creases in the cards?

Same reason the high grade cards are usually too small, not too big.