More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

With questions about seller and auction house scans still lingering in another thread, I thought it topical to ask more generally what scan settings you believe should be used by these folks and what reliance you place on scans when bidding.

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

Very well said. Thank you!

[nolemmings]

See here’s the problem I have with your position Scott. I understand re-examining the issues whenever a new scanner is used or when different types of items are scanned, but what about when the same scanner is used for all flat items/cards and the scans are met with few or no complaints from buyers or bidders?

Here I do not believe that Goodwin or Probstein--intentionally or unintentionally-created extra bright or enhanced scans of these cards, yet clearly the actual card in hand does not look as good as the scan. The scans provided were large and clear, yet they failed to display the flaws. Should these sellers be in any way scorned?(you say be held accountable, but I’m confident they would have both honored returns-- is that sufficient accountability?). Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Did they have an obligation to carefully examine these cards and change their settings to show the defects or at least point them out in the descriptions? What is a “good representative scan” as you call it, and did the sellers of my two Bakers fail to provide those here in your opinion?

The last thing I would ever do is take up for Probstein, but I think the answer to your first question is no, they don't have the obligation to carefully examine each card. There just simply isn't enough time for dealers to do that (especially large volume dealers). If the card is graded, you have to hope the TPG did their job. I think it all goes back to what James said in post #3. If you buy a card that is graded a 3, 4 or 5 and it looks more like a 5, 6 or 7, you have to assume it has some kind of flaw (that the scanner may or may not have picked up) and that is the reason for the low technical grade. That said, if they see a hidden flaw as they're scanning it, yes they should make mention of it, but I don't think they should have to scrutinize graded cards for hidden flaws as that's what the TPG is paid to do.

There are times when you just can't make a known wrinkle appear in a scan, no matter the scanner or who is scanning it...and sometimes can only see that wrinkle when you only hold it at a certain angle in the light. I just don't think dealers should have to do that with graded cards. What if they did scrutinize each card and still accidentally overlooked a wrinkle? Is it really their fault? In the cases with the Bakers, they are graded accurately (IMO).

I've sold cards (even here on the B/S/T) where the scanner did not pick up certain flaws (such as wrinkles). In such cases, I've tried adjusting the settings and re-scanning the cards (sometimes even multiple times) to make the flaws more visible, but sometimes it just can't be done with a scanner...and I'm certainly not going to waste 15 minutes or more to scan one card. In that case, I try to make mention of those flaws, but could I have missed a few at times? Certainly.

The answer to your second question is a “good representative scan” shows the card's true colors (whether you have to adjust the scanner settings to do this or not, but not enhanced to make it brighter or to mislead the buyer). If the two Bakers were scanned with no adjustments to the settings, then they provided good quality scans (IMO).

Are your scans better than their scans? Certainly. But you may have a better scan than they do. But just because you have better scans doesn't mean that it's anything they did wrong.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I have owned many scanners - the settings that had to be tweaked were different for each scanner, and also different for different types of items. I would say that if you can't get a good representative scan of an item, state in your auction that you apologize for not being able to do so, and that the image shown is what the scanner default settings allowed you to provide. Creating extra-bright or enhanced color images in order to be deceptive, is certainly a bad idea and such sellers should be held accountable.

I realize that many (perhaps most of you) disagree with me, but this is something I'm sticking with - if anyone ever receives an item from me that does not look as good as the scan, I will certainly reconsider the techniques I use to provide accurate images.

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

+1

I would like to add that most sellers who adjust their scanner settings (myself included) do not do so to be deceptive. I will slightly adjust my settings to properly advertise my card the way I believe it should be represented. We can all agree that a scan of a card is MILES different from viewing the card in person. Uping the dpi and making the scan marginally sharper will prevent the image from looking blurry. I have never had a complaint.

[cyseymour]

In the context of the PWCC thread, where by the naked eye you could tell that the scan was obviously enhanced (and the seller admitted to altering the settings), I disagreed with David and Scott. But in this instance, it is a different story, and I agree with them on at least one point - unless Todd reveals which scanner he was using, and we also learned the scanners used by Probstein and/or Goodwin, the comparison is somewhat useless.

[ZachS]

I sent another poster some scans of a card he was interested in purchasing. I could see some wrinkles on the card and I couldn't get them to show up in the scan even though I was trying. I eventually used my camera to focus in on the creases and send him the scans and photo.

I would like to think that most people aren't deliberately trying to be deceptive with scans. Sometimes it's just difficult to get everything to show up.

I will say that if an auction house is selling a card and there are known/visible creases, then that information should be noted in the listing (especially if they don't show up on the scans).

[KCRfan1]

Aside from accurate images ( sellers know what their scans look like ), it would be nice to have any flaws posted in the item description and location of the flaw. I realize that I am asking way too much for that to ever happen. In most cases we can return ( less shipping fees ), however a lot of time and potential misunderstandings could be saved if sellers were forthcoming with buyers.

[Mikehealer]

I'm not sure this matters, but I'm pretty sure Goodwin doesn't scan his cards, he uses a photographer.

[Vol]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Also, simply cleaning the plastic slabs (wiping off fingerprints, smudges and ... hairs) goes a long way toward a good image. It's amazing how many big auction houses don't take the time to do this.

Scott, what do you find is the best way to get fingerprints/smudges off the slabs? I am having a tough time getting some cleaned. Thanks.

[the 'stache]

Isaac, I've found that a lens cleaning cloth works wonders. They're non-abrasive, and there's no chemicals to cloud the plastic. For really stubborn prints, just a dampen the cloth. I use them, too, to wipe fingerprints on my scanner surface.

I'm intrigued by the 3M Lens Cleaning Cloth, and am going to order some.

http://www.amazon.com/3M-9021-Lens-C.../dp/B00009PSZ2

I'll let you all know what I think. These + the Novus 2 Fine Scratch Remover solution I have should make the slabs look about as clean as possible (and the next best thing to paying for reslabbing).

[Vol]

Bill, thanks man for the tips.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by VOLnVEGAS

Scott, what do you find is the best way to get fingerprints/smudges off the slabs? I am having a tough time getting some cleaned. Thanks.

Sorry I missed this post. All I do is breathe on them to get some condensation, then I quickly wipe with a cloth that was intended to clean my glasses. It works great unless the plastic is scratched.

On another note, noticing that one of the PSA card scans had a darker background - this does not necessarily mean that contrast was tweaked. I always scan slabbed cards with a dark black cloth placed over the back of the card - to me this is imperative when scanning PSA cards, not so much with SGC. Cloth works better than black paper.