More on the subject of seller/auction house scans

[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.