More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

2) I agree with the poster above that said, "I think if you are buying mid grade cards that look nicer then you should expect an issue that isnt easy to see. I am not sure why else these cards could have graded out that way if not for a tough to see defect."

+1

I see the paper loss and maybe a wrinkle, but if I were looking at them as a buyer I would see two VG+ / VG-EX cards with good eye appeal.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the responses guys. The scans you see came directly from the auction websites, and I do not believe they were re-sized much if at all coming through to net54. Here are the auction links:

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...entoryid=24412
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-M101-4-...p2047675.l2557

Bill you raise an interesting point. Could you see what you perceive to be the wrinkle without taking the various photoshop steps you took? When buying higher dollar (or any)cards should one expect to subject the card to such types of scrutiny?

Do you others who see the wrinkle on the Altoona Tribune concur it is where Bill says, and if so, did you find it on your own or did you focus in on the spot Bill identified?

I agree wholeheartedly that if cards look nicer than you should expect for the grade, there is probably a slight defect. The Successful Farming card is so scarce that I really didn’t care too much, although I hoped they may have marked it down for the speck of paper loss on the “A” in “Iowa”, because I knew that is not paper loss at all but instead an inking problem–I will show other examples. I suppose I could have called Mr. Goodwin, but frankly I wanted to keep the Baker off his radar because his listing failed to mention that this was the ultra-scarce promo card and I didn’t know if he would modify the listing or pull the card (shameful of me).

I saw that the Altoona Tribune Baker has light damage along the right edge–many of them do, as if there was a dull blade or something that leads to slight chipping or bending in that area. Moreover, 90% of Altoona Tribune cards have faint pressure lines, sometimes extremely faint, which invariably knocks them down to vg or vg-ex status (only 2 in the entire set are graded higher than vg-ex). This is what I attributed to the card getting the grade it received. I just did not expect the wrinkle. BTW, I’m not sure whether Bill got it right because the actual wrinkle is IMO more aligned with Baker’s thigh, and he may have seen what is at most a light scratch below that point and closer to the knee area.

I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in."

That's two teasers now. The tension is unbearable.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"I will post my scans in a little while, just in case someone else wants to chime in."

That's two teasers now. The tension is unbearable.

It's just a glitch, Peter.

[MW1]

The first card has a crease in the right border area, roughly spanning the strike zone, about an inch to an inch and a half in length. The crease on the back of the second card is much tougher to see but I think it is near the top left corner.

[nolemmings]

Mike, the area you describe is the "bend" I was referring to earlier that is many times found in this issue, although I can see how you might call it a vertical wrinkle. It is a flaw no doubt, but one I noticed.

Here are the scans I took once the cards were in hand. Note the slight discoloration spot on the Altoona Tribune right border, across from the lower thigh area. The wrinkle extends somewhat straight in both directions from there (dips a little on the right), and is easily confirmed when the corresponding area on the card's reverse is seen. Note also the back wrinkle that runs from the left border through FA in FAVORITE and further through the B in TRIBUNE. These back “flaws” are certainly not visible in the scans used by the seller, and if you saw the front wrinkle based on seller’s scan only, I may ask for your help in future purchases. The Successful Farming back wrinkles run through the area that talks about obtaining 100 cards (the entire three lines)–thankfully, they do not break through to the front.




Believe me, the wrinkles would have been more readily seen had I used night-time ceiling lighting in my scans, and are easily seen in hand.

[Ease]

Wow, what a difference. Could someone post a side by side of the auction photos and Todd's?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Bill you raise an interesting point. Could you see what you perceive to be the wrinkle without taking the various photoshop steps you took? When buying higher dollar (or any)cards should one expect to subject the card to such types of scrutiny?

Todd, to answer your first question, no I could not have.

When I first saw the scan you provided from Probstein's auction, what I thought was a wrinkle actually ended up being a flaw within the photo itself. I confirmed this when I compared it to the scan from Goodwin's auction. A different card, obviously, but the same "shadow" appeared. It is somewhat hard to see at first glance, but if you look at both scans, the arrow indicates a dark diagonal line extending from the middle of Baker's left leg, down and to the right, then straightening down vertically.



Upon taking Probstein's scan into Photoshop, I caught what I thought could be the wrinkle you were describing when examining the area around that flaw. If you look at the beginning of that line down I described, from the same starting point, there is second faint line moving left to right, at least partially. Again, when comparing the Probstein scan and the Goodwin scan, it appears that both cards exhibit the same imperfection. However, above that line, the Probstein scan shows a slight darker line that the Goodwin scan does not. It appears as a shadow starting in the white border (about a third of the way up from the bottom), extends through the black outline, and into the picture. It's very subtle, and if I hadn't been looking at that area, I would have missed it. I then began playing with the picture, first inverting the image, and then messing with the hue. I thought that I might be seeing the wrinkle you alluded to, but wasn't sure.

Inverting a picture is often helpful in spotting surface flaws, as is adjusting the hue setting, even in a monochrome color card. I do this a lot when buying modern Bowman Chrome prospect auto cards because the production process involved creates metallic scan lines, and when present, they can lower the surface grade a half to a whole point at Beckett.

Example:



When I saw your scan, it was remarkable how easy the crease was to see comparatively. I've created a gif animation overlaying your scan on top of the original Probstein scan. It's as if the crease in their scan, at least in the white border, disappears completely. This is a great example of how scanning settings can completely mask imperfections. I'd like to think that auction houses would disclose any wrinkles like this. I've received two catalogs from REA, and they are very good about describing any wrinkles or creases.

Here's the comparison:



To answer your second question, I'd think any high dollar card purchase should be highly scrutinized, but unfortunately, not everybody has access to Photoshop. No matter how good a scan appears, and how carefully we look them over, it's very easy to overlook a wrinkle. This is where disclosure is so important. An auction house needs to thoroughly describe any imperfections or damage they see. Considering the buyer's commission on these auctions, I don't think that's asking too much.

[buymycards]

Todd, when I compare Probsteins scan to your scans I would say I'm not looking at the same card. I'm wondering if Probstein is using some sort of hi speed scanner because of the high volume of cards they sell and it looks like the quality is much less than 300 dpi.

Rick

[nolemmings]

Bill, thanks for the time and work you put into your response.

Rick, I believe you are probably right, which is one question I was hoping would be discussed more. In the thread on PWCC, Brent is accused of using scans that "are too good to be true" representations of the card, whereas in my case, I would suggest that sellers use scans that "are not good enough to be true" representations of the card.

I'm techno challenged on the intricacies of scanners, so I may be talking out of my, er, hat, but it seems to me that 300 dpi scans would have revealed the flaws I have shown in my Baker cards. Yet I suspect many sellers set their scanners at 200 dpi if for no other reasons than to scan faster and have smaller file sizes. That seems to be acceptable practice from what I have gathered here, as I am basically told I should expect hidden defects in mid-grade cards and not much further comment on the problem is offered--which is fine.

But what if sellers know that 300 dpi scans are going to give a better depiction and more likely show flaws? Is it sufficient excuse to say they run so many auctions they shouldn't have to take the time to use better scans? Sure 400 dpi, 600 dpi etc would be even better and sellers may try and complain where does it end, but that's why I was asking for what should be an acceptable standard. I believe 300 dpi should be expected from any reputable seller.

BTW, I have been asked what type of scanner I use. It's an Epson V33/ V330, a few years old, and cost somewhere between $85-$135 (I don't remember exactly, but I have never paid $150 for a scanner). I use default settings except for the 300 dpi, and am given a choice of four "modes", whatever those are: home mode, auto mode, office mode and professional mode. I use office because it is a work scanner and figured that is what must be best for office work. So nuthin fancy here boys, yet my scans seem to give an accurate representation of the card.

[1880nonsports]

The best sellers provide accurate pictures and descriptions which allows for maximum satisfaction for the buyer and maximum values for a moral and/or long term seller. In the early days I had to adjust hues and saturation as well as any number of things to insure that at least to me - with my monitor and with the card in hand - the card appeared on the net as it did to me in natural light. If I couldn't represent a fault - I took close-ups and made sure it was in my description. Working toward the goal of providing accurate pictures (and ease of use) - I went through quite a few scanners :-( The scanner I have been using of late is quite good (middle tier Cannon). Sometimes I adjust the DPI and I crop some pictures but that's it. I don't want my card to be seen by the buyer as better than my scans/description (yesh I left money on the table....) nor would I want to have the buyer getting a card that is below the quality represented by my pix and description. I want them to bid knowing exactly what they're getting - mirroring my own expectations when buying.
In the anonimity of cyberspace and more to the point eBay - the people who are looking to mis-represent - alter - and separate you from your money under false pretenses abound. If a seller intentionally juices their scans - I find it dishonest and I wouldn't trust giving them any business - as a scan is part of the description.
There are also honest and well meaning people who do a bad job at any of the requisite tasks involved in selling an item. I don't think auction houses are exempt from this. Some do a better job than others - I believe at least in the long run that will be reflected in their success and longevity (er um ah forget about CC for a second!). It's an imperfect world. Don't give your business to those people.................

[the 'stache]

1880, it's interesting you would adjust the hues and saturation, because that's what I've been doing in scanning my pre-war cards. I have a Canoscan 8400F, and I've been using the included software, then slightly tweaking the card in Photoshop. I'd completely forgotten that you could use Photoshop to scan without any second software, so I did some scans using the Photoshop input option. It loads the twain software, does its thing, and I've found the cards actually look better. So, that raises another question for me in regard to the auction houses. Are they using the software included with their scanners, or a professional photo-editing software to do them. They're (hopefully) going to have top of the line scanners as the pictures of the items they are consigning directly impact their sales, and bottom line. I'd be very interested to see a list of the major houses, and what scanner/software combinations they use.

Wouldn't it be nice if REA, Herritage and the other major houses could get together, and decide on some sort of standard?

[JamesGallo]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

To answer your second question, I'd think any high dollar card purchase should be highly scrutinized, but unfortunately, not everybody has access to Photoshop. No matter how good a scan appears, and how carefully we look them over, it's very easy to overlook a wrinkle. This is where disclosure is so important. An auction house needs to thoroughly describe any imperfections or damage they see. Considering the buyer's commission on these auctions, I don't think that's asking too much.

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Most of what has been said it true if it's 10 different scanners the card may present 10 different ways so as long as someone isn't intentionally altering the scan to hide defects I don't see a problem. If there is a certain defect you don't like then ask the seller a detailed question and any good seller or auction house will review a card and give more details when asked. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to grade every graded card.

James G

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Good point, James. A VG-EX card is allowed to have creases. An EX card is not. Any time I bid on a seemingly EX or better card that does not appear to have creases, but it's in a VG-EX or lower holder, I assume it has very tiny creases somewhere on the card.

On the other hand, if I think I might see a very tiny crease on an EX card, but I'm unsure, I will assume it's my imagination, or I will contact the seller before bidding, since it should not have any creases. I have won a few cards that were graded EX and had creases that didn't show - I sent them back and got a prompt refund.

[Theo_450]

Originally Posted by JamesGallo

Really what is the purpose of getting a card graded if I need to grade it and describe every detail when selling it. I really am just being devil's advocate but I think my point is valid.

Most of what has been said it true if it's 10 different scanners the card may present 10 different ways so as long as someone isn't intentionally altering the scan to hide defects I don't see a problem. If there is a certain defect you don't like then ask the seller a detailed question and any good seller or auction house will review a card and give more details when asked. I just think it's a bit ridiculous to grade every graded card.

James G

I agree. They look like a couple of nice 4s to me.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the responses. Let me clarify and summarize my position.

1. I am keeping both cards.
2. I believe all wrinkles or creases should be disclosed in auction listings, unless they are very obvious. David Bryan (davidbvintage) has always been great about this, and I'm sure there are others.
3. I get it that a a card graded 4/50 can have slight wrinkles/creases, but see #2 above.
4. I wonder if sellers/auctioneers "underscan" their cards to hide flaws.
5. I wonder (now) if software makes it fairly easy for sellers to disguise wrinkles/creases.
6. I would much rather have a seller who deliberately enhances his scans to "puff" his sale, assuming no defects are obscured, then one who knows (or should if he bothered to look) that there are defects but provides a scan that doesn't show them. F@%*k caveat emptor or "you should have asked" defenses when seller is lazy or worse.
6. I believe it a good idea to have a standard for scan settings, and/or that sellers place in their auction rules/faq's etc. the scanner and scan settings they use, with a disclaimer if they choose. I don't see this happening anytime soon.

[Exhibitman]

A few random points:

Those Baker cards are beautiful for the grades.

Don't forget monitor differences. The settings a seller uses on his monitor can affect how the image looks to him and he might correct a color or contrast level as a result not to cheat but to make the item look more true to life as his monitor shows it.

When a card is scanned in a slab there is going to be some distortion. A CIS scanner [which most all-in-one machines have] doesn't have the depth perception that a CCD scanner does and it won't even scan a slabbed card accurately. I had to keep the old HP scanner I had even though my new Canon printer has a scanner because it cannot scan a slabbed card in focus. Even with a CCD scanner, you are still shooting through a layer of plastic that may or may not be crystal clear.

I find the best test of image accuracy on an auction listing is the color on the flip. We all know what a PSA or SGC flip should look like; if that is too bright, the wrong color, or otherwise distorted, I assume the rest of the image is distorted too.

I don't think an auctioneer who offers a series of large scans, front and back, must offer a description of every card flaw as well, especially if I am buying a midgrade or lower cards. I appreciate it when the AH does so.