pwcc

jtschantz · #1 10-23-2013, 12:33 PM

I have no "dog in the fight" here, but some are asking for examples of scans from PWCC vs a "normal" setting on a Canoscan. I won this T207 in last months PWCC auction and scanned it myself with my normal settings. I know this isn't a great example due to the lack of colors on your typical T207, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. My scan is on the right (or bottom) depending on how you are viewing.

cyseymour · #2 10-23-2013, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtschantz

I have no "dog in the fight" here, but some are asking for examples of scans from PWCC vs a "normal" setting on a Canoscan. I won this T207 in last months PWCC auction and scanned it myself with my normal settings. I know this isn't a great example due to the lack of colors on your typical T207, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. My scan is on the right (or bottom) depending on how you are viewing.

I didn't have a chance to respond to this earlier, but based on your example of this T207, it is clear that, whatever may have happened in the past with PWCC auctions, via accusations from CU and members of this board, that it is clearly no longer a problem. That doesn't stop it from being a hobby-wide concern, but as far as I am concerned, it seems that Brent has rectified the problems concerning his scans, at least in last month's auction. For that, I am thankful and congratulate him for his responsiveness.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 10-23-2013, 08:01 PM

I agree his scans look more reasonable than before, but I think they may still be a bit too bright, if this is an example.

cyseymour · #4 10-23-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree his scans look more reasonable than before, but I think they may still be a bit too bright, if this is an example.

Peter, I'm not sure it is a valid example for a couple of reasons: a) you are comparing two different cards (one is more beaten than the other), and b) those scans were likely taken by different scanners. The first scan could be a CIS scan.

I think the T207 was more solid comparison because it compared the same exact card with a known scanner (Canoscan) to the PWCC scan. In fact the Canoscan came up brighter.

It's still possible that PWCC is increasing the brightness, and in fact in your example that card looks somewhat bright, but not to the extent where it is blatant. So I don't think your example proves much one way or the other.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 10-23-2013, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Peter, I'm not sure it is a valid example for a couple of reasons: a) you are comparing two different cards (one is more beaten than the other), and b) those scans were likely taken by different scanners. The first scan could be a CIS scan.

I think the T207 was more solid comparison because it compared the same exact card with a known scanner (Canoscan) to the PWCC scan. In fact the Canoscan came up brighter.

It's still possible that PWCC is increasing the brightness, and in fact in your example that card looks somewhat bright, but not to the extent where it is blatant. So I don't think your example proves much one way or the other.

Another one at random. October 10.

sam majors · #6 10-23-2013, 08:02 PM

Hell, it's plain to see that the correct answer is maybe yes or probably not! Sam Majors

dstudeba · #7 10-23-2013, 08:14 PM

Val and I agree to agree that Leon should part with his E222.

Hi Val.

Leon · #8 10-23-2013, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dstudeba

Val and I agree to agree that Leon should part with his E222.

Hi Val.

Well, I can agree to disagree with ya'lls double agreement.

Eric72 · #9 10-23-2013, 09:05 PM

I loathe to tread within this thread; however, do have an opinion to offer. Anyone who takes consignments has a duty to accurately represent the items being offered. This applies to both images and text.

As for shilling, there should be a zero tolerance policy for this sort of illegal behavior. Anyone who makes a living through selling other people's property should be taken to task if not doing things properly; on this board, in the court of public opinion, and a court of law...if a fraudulent sale occurs.

Just my two cents. My full name appears in my signature.

Best Regards,

Eric

npa589 · #10 10-23-2013, 09:12 PM

A solution for all scanners that simply don't behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...sSr3z5nVk#t=38

calvindog · #11 10-23-2013, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyseymour

but as far as I am concerned, it seems that Brent has rectified the problems concerning his scans, at least in last month's auction. For that, I am thankful and congratulate him for his responsiveness.

Agreed. Congratulations Brent for committing fraud, getting caught, lying about fraud, getting caught lying about fraud, and finally toning down the fraud a bit.

Oh -- and we haven't gotten to the possible shill bidding and massive bid retractions yet.

cyseymour · #12 10-23-2013, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Agreed. Congratulations Brent for committing fraud, getting caught, lying about fraud, getting caught lying about fraud, and finally toning down the fraud a bit.

Oh -- and we haven't gotten to the possible shill bidding and massive bid retractions yet.

At least he is showing initiative.

slipk1068 · #13 10-24-2013, 01:05 AM

Won this card 9/29/2013 in a PWCC auction. 1st scan is the PWCC scan, 2nd scan I just made 5 minutes ago.

I saved the PWCC scan as a JPEG. My scan is using a Cannon MX870 scanner 300dpi. All I did was put the card in the scanner and switch from "Black and White Documents" to "Color Photo" then saved it as a JPEG.

A fellow board member (Donk) once implied that I altered a scan of a $10 card I was auctioning on Net54, so consider that when comparing the 2 if you choose to believe I (or anyone) would alter a scan to sell a $10 poor condition T206.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

cyseymour · #14 10-24-2013, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slipk1068

Won this card 9/29/2013 in a PWCC auction. 1st scan is the PWCC scan, 2nd scan I just made 5 minutes ago.

I saved the PWCC scan as a JPEG. My scan is using a Cannon MX870 scanner 300dpi. All I did was put the card in the scanner and switch from "Black and White Documents" to "Color Photo" then saved it as a JPEG.

A fellow board member (Donk) once implied that I altered a scan of a $10 card I was auctioning on Net54, so consider that when comparing the 2 if you choose to believe I (or anyone) would alter a scan to sell a $10 poor condition T206.

D@v1d $h1p$ey

The Canon MX870 is an all-in-one printer. Those devices take terrible scans. They don't have CCD technology. That's why your scan looks so poor in comparison to the PWCC scan.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Increcible prices for PWCC auctions	Peter_Spaeth	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	103	09-22-2016 08:46 AM
Did anyone get the T206 SGC 86 O'hara on PWCC?	CMIZ5290	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	09-30-2013 08:36 AM
Anyone win any of the STAMPED E90-1 cards from PWCC?	CaramelMan	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	08-08-2013 04:51 AM
Latest PWCC	drmondobueno	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	16	02-14-2013 03:15 PM
1935 Goudey Master on EBay with PWCC	grundle20	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	0	06-02-2012 12:44 PM